11/29/2002
11/28/2002
Similar Idea
Here's a column, "Republicans Get Bonus From War on Terrorism", saying something similar to the Alternet column I pointed to Wednesday (the piece just below this one), that discussed people's images of the ideal family helping determine their political leanings.
"...images of Republicans as the "Daddy" party offering strength and security against the Democrats' nurturing "Mommy" mission."Go read it. Different people coming to similar conclusions.
11/27/2002
Strict Daddy Bush
Exposing the Right clued me in to this Alternet article, Grappling With the Politics of Fear. This is an absolute must-read article, delving into the psychology behind progressive and right-wing thinking, and how the way we think of family helps determine our political perspective.
"According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive scientist and author of "Moral Politics," the anxiety-provoking anti-terrorism actions and messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the category of the "strict father" mode of communication.Please go read this article. There is much more. I spent actual money and braved a dial-up connection (ugh!) to post this.
Lakoff concludes that the country is dramatically split between two ways of understanding the world. Some see this division as political – conservative vs. liberal. But Lakoff argues that it is ultimately a moral division, one derived from how people envision the right kind of family. Hence it is also a personal division.
Lakoff believes that the "strict father" mode is at the bedrock of conservative ideology. This morality "assigns highest priority to such things as moral strength ... respect for and obedience to authority [and] the setting and following of strict guidelines of behavioral norms." Nurturant parent morality, by contrast, "requires empathy for others and the helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of oneself and nurture social ties." This morality provides the basis for progressive/liberal ideology.
Clearly, in this post-Clinton period, where a fundamental assumption is that the world is a dangerous place, and people must be protected, the strict-father worldview is in ascendance. And the conservatives know it, and they know how to use it.
As Lakoff underscores, "Over the past thirty years conservatives have poured billions of dollars into their think tanks. They have articulated the system of moral and family values that unifies conservatives; they have created appropriate language for their vision; they have disseminated it throughout the media; and they have developed a coherent political program to fit their values." Lakoff argues that this infrastructure of ideas and values is the essential reason "for the success that conservatives have been enjoying, despite the fact that they appear to be the minority."
11/26/2002
Back in December
I'm leaving for a week and a half. I'll try posting - we'll see. I have
to try dialing AOL in England.
This is a test of posting to the weblog via e-mail. If you DO NOT see this,
please let me know.
to try dialing AOL in England.
This is a test of posting to the weblog via e-mail. If you DO NOT see this,
please let me know.
Nostalgia
The Fairness Doctrine. The good old days. Why, when I was your age, radio and TV stations,
Oh for the good old days. Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine by executive action in 1987. Congress tried to restore it. Reagan and then Bush vetoed restoring the Fairness Doctrine after the Congress overwhelmingly voted to restore it, and then in 1993 the Republicans filibustered it to prevent it from passing. For SOME reason, the Republicans seem to think they benefit from there being no Fairness Doctrine.
were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.and
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.and
Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue.and from FAIR (1994)
The Fairness Doctrine doesn't require that each program be internally balanced, or mandate "equal time": It would not require that balance in the overall program line-up be anything close to 50/50. It merely prohibits a station from blasting away day after day from one perspective, without any opposing views.Oh how far we have come, now that AM radio is 24-hours-a-day-7-days-a-week nothing more than a continuous Republicans Party advertisement, spewing hate and ridicule and nastiness and propaganda and insults and character assassination and slime.
Oh for the good old days. Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine by executive action in 1987. Congress tried to restore it. Reagan and then Bush vetoed restoring the Fairness Doctrine after the Congress overwhelmingly voted to restore it, and then in 1993 the Republicans filibustered it to prevent it from passing. For SOME reason, the Republicans seem to think they benefit from there being no Fairness Doctrine.
Crisis Papers
The Smirking Chimp article led me to The Crisis Papers. Worth checking out. Good stuff.
Voting Machines
Bernard Weiner, at Smirking Chimp yesterday,
This makes two elections, the one in 2000 and now in 2002, where the results are suspicious; in the first case, the Supreme Court summarily ended the re-counting of citizens' ballots, in effect installing Bush into the White House. (And, as we now know, had the Florida recount proceeded, Gore, who won the national popular vote by more than a half-million ballots, would have been President.) In the 2002 midterm election, touchscreen computer-voting in key states -- where, just days prior to the balloting, Dems were either leading in the polls or neck-and-neck against their GOP opponents -- may have, could have, been tweaked in enough close elections to tip the scales to the GOP; there were no ways of re-counting ballots, since there were no ballots to double-check against, and, at the last-minute, there was no exit polling, so again nothing to check the computer results against how people said they voted. He who controls the computer-software in the voting machines has potential control over the numerical results, and only three companies control that technology.Naw, he couldn't be saying THAT, could he?
Corporate Responsibility
Body and Soul is asking how DynCorp can get lucrative government contracts after employees - on government contract - have been caught at things like running a sex slave trafficking ring (buying and selling girls as young as 12), screwing up and helping shoot down a plane full of Baptist missionaries, narcotics trafficking and killing peasants by spraying them with toxic chemicals.
"I know I don't have much of a head for business, but I grew up believing that prostitution, drug dealing and reckless disregard for the lives of others were the kinds of things that got you into a whole lot of trouble.Maybe this will help answer the question.
When did that change? "
"The Bush administration Friday ordered the suspension of a Clinton rule that would have significantly strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that have violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws."Click here for details.
Get Active
This BuzzFlash story about coverage of anti-war protests is encouraging. It says that getting active can WORK. Lots of people contacted NPR and the New York Times, and this caused them to issue corrections of their coverage of the Washington, DC anti-war marches. Get active.
Get active. It's time to be talking to everyone you know about what is going on. Word-of-mouth counts with people. It is difficult at first. It can feel embarrassing, because we are so primed to think of activists as "whacko liberals," or "aging hippies," or so many other negative, ridiculing images. I had this problem when I started registering voters earlier this year. I had a card table and a chair and a sign, and I set up in a public place, and I felt ridiculous. But after I sat down at that table and started talking to people I got over it and I felt GREAT about what I was doing because I knew how important it was and because so many people were telling me they were very glad to see "someone" out there doing this important work! ( It hadn't occurred to them to be out there doing this important work. No one seems to see themselves as someone who can get things done.)
If you are reading this, then you are probably concerned about the things going on with the government. I think they are too important to just sit back and quietly let them continue. I think it is time to speak up, even if you risk feeling foolish. You should be talking to people, e-mailing them, and asking them to get active as well.
Get active. It's time to be talking to everyone you know about what is going on. Word-of-mouth counts with people. It is difficult at first. It can feel embarrassing, because we are so primed to think of activists as "whacko liberals," or "aging hippies," or so many other negative, ridiculing images. I had this problem when I started registering voters earlier this year. I had a card table and a chair and a sign, and I set up in a public place, and I felt ridiculous. But after I sat down at that table and started talking to people I got over it and I felt GREAT about what I was doing because I knew how important it was and because so many people were telling me they were very glad to see "someone" out there doing this important work! ( It hadn't occurred to them to be out there doing this important work. No one seems to see themselves as someone who can get things done.)
If you are reading this, then you are probably concerned about the things going on with the government. I think they are too important to just sit back and quietly let them continue. I think it is time to speak up, even if you risk feeling foolish. You should be talking to people, e-mailing them, and asking them to get active as well.
Slept On It - Still Scared
Sometimes lately - since Bush v Gore - I imagine I'm looking at current events as if I am a future historian, tracking the record of "what happened" - sort of like how we now look back at Germany in the 30's, trying to understand how it happened.
I used to wonder, if I was in Germany in the 30's, at what point would I have seen what was happening, and gotten out? Now I wonder if John Poindexter being brought back into the government - not to mention being placed in charge of this Information Awareness thing! - is a sign I should be paying that kind of attention to. (I know - To which I should be paying attention. I just can't write that.)
I used to wonder, if I was in Germany in the 30's, at what point would I have seen what was happening, and gotten out? Now I wonder if John Poindexter being brought back into the government - not to mention being placed in charge of this Information Awareness thing! - is a sign I should be paying that kind of attention to. (I know - To which I should be paying attention. I just can't write that.)
11/25/2002
True, Too
Over at Ironic Times:
Air of Optimism Pervades Wall Street
Better-than-anticipated sales of gas masks, survival kits, radiation pills buoys markets.
Go Get Scared
Go read DEBKAfile and get scared.
"In the last few hours DEBKAfile counter-terror sources report a heightened volume of traffic over the Arabic Internet forums frequented by al Qaeda and its partisans. Most of the last messages end: “The zero hour has come.”I'm getting on a plane to New York Wednesday, and London Friday. Great.
Connection
Check out Situation Room. Be sure to scroll down to this, about John Poindexter. Be prepared to lose sleep.
Take the Poll
There's a poll at the Lou Dobbs site, asking if you think the media is liberal or (what they call themselves) conservative. Scroll down and it's on the left. (Thanks to Busy, Busy, Busy.)
Update - It's a new poll now. Never mind.
Update - It's a new poll now. Never mind.
11/24/2002
I Will Be Out of the Country For About Two Weeks
Beginning Wednesday I'll be out of the country for about two weeks due to a family illness. I'll be posting a few things via e-mail if I can get online. I'll try to check in with some blogs to see what's going on, but it's expensive and 'll be pretty busy. I'll try to ask people what's their take on events and share the persepctive with you all.
Now I know some of you are going to take this pretty hard, so I'm going to try to post a list of some services that are available. There are some good online depression sites, and I'll see if I can get a list of links together. I'll also see if there are online suicide hotlines. But mostly, remember, I'll be back pretty soon.
Now I know some of you are going to take this pretty hard, so I'm going to try to post a list of some services that are available. There are some good online depression sites, and I'll see if I can get a list of links together. I'll also see if there are online suicide hotlines. But mostly, remember, I'll be back pretty soon.
Media Defending Rush!
We've reached the point where the "liberal" media is defending Rush Limbaugh over Tom Daschle.
I want to ask the "journalists" defending Rush this week, do you actually listen to Limbaugh, and the others? If you do, what does that say about your credibility as a mainstream journalist? If not, considering what you wrote, what does that say about your credibility as any kind of journalist?
(My thanks to Atrios.)
I want to ask the "journalists" defending Rush this week, do you actually listen to Limbaugh, and the others? If you do, what does that say about your credibility as a mainstream journalist? If not, considering what you wrote, what does that say about your credibility as any kind of journalist?
(My thanks to Atrios.)
11/22/2002
More on Rush
Spinsanity has lots of Limbaugh, as well as lots on attacks on Daschle.
"Yet Limbaugh, especially, is guilty of extremely vicious rhetoric. Consider just a few examples from his frequent diatribes against Daschle over the last two years. On Nov. 15, he asserted that Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism amounted to "an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism," called him "Hanoi Tom" and suggested that he is " a disgrace to patriotism." On other occasions, Limbaugh has suggested that "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil" and has drawn an extended analogy between Daschle and Satan."There are links in this, but you have to go to their site to follow them.
Rush
A lot of people tell me they never, ever listen to Rush Limbaugh. I think it is important to tune in once in a while. It's important to know what the Republicans are saying to their audience.
Daily Howler quotes Rush Limbaugh at length today, talking about Tom Daschle. It is truly worth reading, to remind us all of how Bush has "changed the tone." And as you read this, remember this is just a few minutes of the stuff Rush spews out for three hours a day, five days a week. Please go read it. Be reminded just how important it is that we get active and get other people informed and involved.
Daily Howler quotes Rush Limbaugh at length today, talking about Tom Daschle. It is truly worth reading, to remind us all of how Bush has "changed the tone." And as you read this, remember this is just a few minutes of the stuff Rush spews out for three hours a day, five days a week. Please go read it. Be reminded just how important it is that we get active and get other people informed and involved.
Blogger Tip Jar Controversy
Skippy has started all the bloggers talking about tip jars - asking readers to donate some money to keep the effort going. I'm going to take a different tack on this.
I think it's great if some bloggers ask for a donation. More power to ya! I don't ask readers for cash, but I don't object when others do. (Voice from wife in background, "What do you mean you aren't asking for cash. You can do that? Why aren't you doing that?")
What I want is for all of us "lefty" bloggers to more actively encourage our readers to go out and recruit more people to discover what's available online. If the country is divided down the middle politically that should mean that about 140 million people agree with us. We need to start getting them to "OUR" information sources - BuzzFlash and weblogs! It's not just to get us more readers, this is important. There really is better information here than people are getting from newspapers and TV. And jeeze, don't even mention radio!
I haven't seen other bloggers asking readers to send e-mails out to others. That's how you get people to try something - you ask them! So all you bloggers, start asking your readers to send e-mails to people they know, telling them that the mainstream information sources are not being straight with them! If you're reading these weblogs and other online sources you KNOW this is a fact!
For you bloggers who are asking for some cash, think about this. Suppose you're getting $1 a day now. Suppose that a serious outreach effort can get 100 times as many people getting their info online... do the math.
There are somewhere up to 140 million people on our side in this country - go tell them to start reading BuzzFlash and discover weblogs.
I think it's great if some bloggers ask for a donation. More power to ya! I don't ask readers for cash, but I don't object when others do. (Voice from wife in background, "What do you mean you aren't asking for cash. You can do that? Why aren't you doing that?")
What I want is for all of us "lefty" bloggers to more actively encourage our readers to go out and recruit more people to discover what's available online. If the country is divided down the middle politically that should mean that about 140 million people agree with us. We need to start getting them to "OUR" information sources - BuzzFlash and weblogs! It's not just to get us more readers, this is important. There really is better information here than people are getting from newspapers and TV. And jeeze, don't even mention radio!
I haven't seen other bloggers asking readers to send e-mails out to others. That's how you get people to try something - you ask them! So all you bloggers, start asking your readers to send e-mails to people they know, telling them that the mainstream information sources are not being straight with them! If you're reading these weblogs and other online sources you KNOW this is a fact!
For you bloggers who are asking for some cash, think about this. Suppose you're getting $1 a day now. Suppose that a serious outreach effort can get 100 times as many people getting their info online... do the math.
There are somewhere up to 140 million people on our side in this country - go tell them to start reading BuzzFlash and discover weblogs.
Thank You
Thank You to Ruminate This for posting this.
As I said the other day, the way to fight back is to learn how the right was so successful, and then do what they did.
As I said the other day, the way to fight back is to learn how the right was so successful, and then do what they did.
11/21/2002
More Scary
Here's some more about that scary agency.
Shadow of the Hegemon (the links aren't working right, so scroll down to the one that starts with, "I'm not sure if it's because the site popped..."), commenting on a Thinking it Through piece, comparing McCarthyism with what's going on today,
Doesn't anyone else out there remember Nixon? Do you remember wondering if you were being wiretapped because you opposed Nixon? Wondering if the FBI was going to break into your house? They were using the power of government to go after their political opposition.
It isn't just paranoia to think that Republicans do things like this - it's memory.
Shadow of the Hegemon (the links aren't working right, so scroll down to the one that starts with, "I'm not sure if it's because the site popped..."), commenting on a Thinking it Through piece, comparing McCarthyism with what's going on today,
"The key, I suppose, is where small "l" libertarians will come down on this if this becomes a hallmark of the Republican party. While I'm sure they like those Republican tax cuts, the prospect of an agency whose members are politically appointed, socially conservative and damned near omniscient has got to be somewhat alarming."THAT'S what is bothering me so much about this new agency - it will be managed by political appointees who are loyal to The Party, not the country. And the new rules allow The Party to bypass civil service rules and purge non-loyal Party members.
Doesn't anyone else out there remember Nixon? Do you remember wondering if you were being wiretapped because you opposed Nixon? Wondering if the FBI was going to break into your house? They were using the power of government to go after their political opposition.
It isn't just paranoia to think that Republicans do things like this - it's memory.
Wealth Bondage
I found the Wealth Bondage site because they are referring people to the Commonweal Institute. But can someone explain this site to me, please? What?
Bush the Liar
Thanks to Planet Swank for pointing to this Eleanor Clift article about Bush being such a liar.
Scary
I'm listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR. They have a guy from the Heritage Foundation on, talking about why the huge "Information Awareness" database is a good thing and nothing to worry about. This is the Pentagon database that will track everything you purchase, every bank and credit card transaction, and who knows what else.
The Heritage Foundation is the core of the far-right "movement." It's the Rush Limbaugh of think tanks. It is where the most partisan, right-wing propaganda comes from. Why would someone from the Heritage Foundation be sent out to talk up this database of info on Americans? The Heritage Foundation is about REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN RIGHT POLITICS! The Heritage Foundation would not be interested in this if it were not about furthering the right-wing movement.
They put John Poindexter in charge of it, and they send people out from the Heritage Foundation to defend it. That tells you everything you need to know. A hard rain's gonna fall.
The Heritage Foundation is the core of the far-right "movement." It's the Rush Limbaugh of think tanks. It is where the most partisan, right-wing propaganda comes from. Why would someone from the Heritage Foundation be sent out to talk up this database of info on Americans? The Heritage Foundation is about REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN RIGHT POLITICS! The Heritage Foundation would not be interested in this if it were not about furthering the right-wing movement.
They put John Poindexter in charge of it, and they send people out from the Heritage Foundation to defend it. That tells you everything you need to know. A hard rain's gonna fall.
11/20/2002
Rubbing Our Noses In It
John Balzar, in the LA Times today, talking about a:
"...rub-their-noses-in-it statement offered recently in a court case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a feather-brained brief, the administration argued that conservationists should consider the upside of bird deaths at a remote Navy live-fire range. "Bird-watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." Besides, the government added, Navy bombardment keeps away people who might otherwise disturb the birds."It's GOOD to kill birds because birdwatchers get more enjoyment spotting rare birds. What's left to say here? Go read the whole thing.
How They Do It 4
Michael Finley has a piece today describing in detail one example of how right-wing propaganda is developed and disseminated. His piece also points to a CalPundit piece.
Both weblogs earn a place in Essential Links.
Both weblogs earn a place in Essential Links.
An E-mail I'm Sending Out
Here is an e-mail I am sending out to friends who I know forward things like this:
Please forward this.If you have made your way to this weblog, you are likely a well-informed person who gets a lot of info from the web. And you know there is a difference in the information you get on the web from the info that most people are getting. We need to make an effort to grow the number of people visiting progressive/moderate news-sites and weblogs. So I recommend telling people to check in at BuzzFlash every day, and helping others discover the world of weblogs. Feel free to copy the above letter and using it as a base for a letter you send to others.
I have found that people who get their news from "alternative" sites on the Internet are so much better informed about what's going on in the world and the country than people who rely on newspapers and TV news.
You might agree with me that the information that most Americans receive comes from a rightist to centrist corporate perspective. Example - when is the last time you saw a labor leader interviewed on TV, talking about why people should join unions? This is because you wouldn't expect a corporate-controlled news source to give people information about the advantages of joining unions, and they don't.
20 years ago the right believed they had a similar problem with media access for their message. What they did was to set up their own channels of communication - starting with speeches broadcast on C-SPAN, and then talk radio. The was ability to widely distribute information from their perspective is part of what led to their success.
Progressives and moderates need a central place where they can get information from a progressive/moderate perspective. I suggest that we start by visiting the news website BuzzFlash. I've looked around, and BuzzFlash offers the best daily roundup of news from a variety of sources. I am not associated with BuzzFlash in any way. BuzzFlash is located on the web at http://www.buzzflash.com.
Common Dreams -http://www.commondreams.org/ and AlterNet - http://www.alternet.org/ - are other good sites, but not as news-intensive as BuzzFlash.
There is also a new phenomenon called "weblogs", or "blogs" for short. These are "diaries" where people post information and opinion, and many of them are very good. To discover these weblogs, visit The Lefty Directory at http://newleftblogs.blogspot.com/. Some good professional weblogs are Tapped at http://www.prospect.org/weblog/, and Altercation at http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp.
So I recommend checking in at BuzzFlash every day, and also discovering the world of weblogs. Try it for a few days, and you will see that there is a whole other world of information available. I also recommend letting as many others as possible know about this problem and why they should check a site like BuzzFlash every day.
A Blatant Plug for Commonweal Institute
The way to fight back is to learn how the right was so successful at moving the public toward their objectives, and then do what they did.
Job Fair
I was driving home from the dog food store yesterday and tuned in to the traffic report. They said there was a traffic jam because E-Bay was having a job fair.
Meanwhile, today, Xerox Cuts More Than 2,400 Jobs, NCR to Eliminate 1,500 Jobs, and Black & Decker Cutting 1,300 Jobs, "The company announced in January that it would spend $190 million to restructure and move manufacturing from higher-cost plants in the United States and United Kingdom to lower-cost facilities in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic, and announced plans to cut 2,400 jobs." The articles says 2400, the headline 1300, what's the difference.
Afternoon Update - Boeing to cut 5,000 more jobs in commercial group
Naturally, the stock market was way up.
Meanwhile, today, Xerox Cuts More Than 2,400 Jobs, NCR to Eliminate 1,500 Jobs, and Black & Decker Cutting 1,300 Jobs, "The company announced in January that it would spend $190 million to restructure and move manufacturing from higher-cost plants in the United States and United Kingdom to lower-cost facilities in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic, and announced plans to cut 2,400 jobs." The articles says 2400, the headline 1300, what's the difference.
Afternoon Update - Boeing to cut 5,000 more jobs in commercial group
Naturally, the stock market was way up.
11/19/2002
Movie
We went to see the new Harry Potter movie last night. It's a great movie, and I recommend it for anyone. But before the movie we had to sit through TWENTY MINUTES of COMMERCIALS!!!! Some were commercials for other movies, but most were for video games, SUVs, things like that!
We haven't been to any movies for a while. First it was the unemployment budget. Then it was a huge amount of work with the Commonweal Institute. So it's been maybe as long as 5 months! But after this I'm not sure we'll be going to very many movies! COMMERCIALS! (And the popcorn sucked, which is even worse than the commercials.)
We haven't been to any movies for a while. First it was the unemployment budget. Then it was a huge amount of work with the Commonweal Institute. So it's been maybe as long as 5 months! But after this I'm not sure we'll be going to very many movies! COMMERCIALS! (And the popcorn sucked, which is even worse than the commercials.)
Like the Meat in the Supermarket
Here:
Do you know that we are no longer allowed to see honor guard ceremonies for dead soldiers?
VietNam was the last time Americans were allowed to see what REALLY happens in a war. And because of the draft it happened to THEM. If you think about it, this means that no one under about 45 really understands that war is anything other than a TV show. It's like the meat in supermarkets - it comes in a nice clean package. THIS is why the public thirsts for war. Much of the public sees this as a TV show. Clean. Sanitary. No REAL death. No REAL gore. It's just another TV show. Like the meat in the supermarket.
"One reason there was no trace of what happened in the Neutral Zone on those two days was that Armored Combat Earth Movers came behind the armored burial brigade, leveling the ground and smoothing away projecting Iraqi arms, legs and equipment."This isn't about what we did, it's about how it was hidden from us, so we wouldn't know what we did. Our "government" presents us with carefully controlled information, set up so TV screens don't show us the reality. Manufactured consent instead of informed consent. Democracy is So Last Century.
Do you know that we are no longer allowed to see honor guard ceremonies for dead soldiers?
VietNam was the last time Americans were allowed to see what REALLY happens in a war. And because of the draft it happened to THEM. If you think about it, this means that no one under about 45 really understands that war is anything other than a TV show. It's like the meat in supermarkets - it comes in a nice clean package. THIS is why the public thirsts for war. Much of the public sees this as a TV show. Clean. Sanitary. No REAL death. No REAL gore. It's just another TV show. Like the meat in the supermarket.
Poindexter = Reliable
I got a note from Bellona Times, pointing me to this about John Poindexter and the new Total Information Awareness System.
You need to know that the Total Information Awareness System is not a joke. It will enable the Republican Party to track ANY of us, every activity. If you think it isn't about furthering The Party, then ask yourself why it's being set up by John Poindexter. If you didn't click on the John Poindexter yet, click on it. I want you to KNOW who this is.
How can they be SURE that Poindexter is the guy for this job? He has credentials. He has been CONVICTED of hiding from Congress the real agenda of his activities.
You need to know that the Total Information Awareness System is not a joke. It will enable the Republican Party to track ANY of us, every activity. If you think it isn't about furthering The Party, then ask yourself why it's being set up by John Poindexter. If you didn't click on the John Poindexter yet, click on it. I want you to KNOW who this is.
How can they be SURE that Poindexter is the guy for this job? He has credentials. He has been CONVICTED of hiding from Congress the real agenda of his activities.
11/18/2002
Today's Google Experiment
For today's Google Experiment, let's go to Google and search on the words"george bush pilly pillow". There are some interesting stories there. (Spell it differently to find this.)
Next, search on "george bush cheerleader".
This comes out of a conversation with my wife this weekend. I told her Bush was a cheerleader in college (in the East, not in Texas). She didn't believe me. So I told her that Bush carries around a pillow that he calls his "pilly." So she was sure I was in making-things-up mode. I wasn't.
Next, search on "george bush cheerleader".
This comes out of a conversation with my wife this weekend. I told her Bush was a cheerleader in college (in the East, not in Texas). She didn't believe me. So I told her that Bush carries around a pillow that he calls his "pilly." So she was sure I was in making-things-up mode. I wasn't.
Tangled Web
In a Washington Post story about Bob Woodward's book, "The president is shown to be preoccupied by public perceptions of the war, looking at polling data from Rove, now his senior adviser, even after pretending to have no interest."
Remember, Bush campaigned on the claim that he didn't pay attention to polls. Of course, the reason he made this claim was polling showed more people would vote for him if he said he didn't pay attention to polls.
Remember, Bush campaigned on the claim that he didn't pay attention to polls. Of course, the reason he made this claim was polling showed more people would vote for him if he said he didn't pay attention to polls.
Little Cat Feet
Fascism Comes On Little Cat Feet.
(There's no permanent link. If there is a different column at this address, see if you can find the November 18 column.)
(There's no permanent link. If there is a different column at this address, see if you can find the November 18 column.)
BuzzFlash Editorial
I've been reading the BuzzFlash Editorial, They Brazenly Lie, Without Apology and Without Shame: You Know Who We're Talking About.
It's worth reading. However, I have a disagreement. The editorial says, "But did the Democrats take to the airwaves and scream to the high heavens that Bush was betraying the American people by accusing the Democrats of "obstructing" a Department of Homeland Security? Hell, no, that would have forced the Democrats to get angry and shout a little, which is just too uncivilized for their way of thinking. Sometimes we get the feeling that Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt think that it is just too crude to point out the relentless lying and hypocrisy of the White House."
You have to watch C-SPAN to know that the Democrats did this. The problem is not that they aren't saying things, it's that you wouldn't KNOW they are saying these things if you watch regular TV or listen to regular radio or read regular newspapers. It's a different era and we have to get used to it - the Republicans control the media. Democrats CAN'T "take to the airwaves." Get used to it.
Don't get mad at the Democrats for being shut out by the media. Instead, we need to build a "media" for people to get information! As I wrote the other day, I think the best place to start this is BuzzFlash. Tell everyone you know to check BuzzFlash every day.
It's worth reading. However, I have a disagreement. The editorial says, "But did the Democrats take to the airwaves and scream to the high heavens that Bush was betraying the American people by accusing the Democrats of "obstructing" a Department of Homeland Security? Hell, no, that would have forced the Democrats to get angry and shout a little, which is just too uncivilized for their way of thinking. Sometimes we get the feeling that Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt think that it is just too crude to point out the relentless lying and hypocrisy of the White House."
You have to watch C-SPAN to know that the Democrats did this. The problem is not that they aren't saying things, it's that you wouldn't KNOW they are saying these things if you watch regular TV or listen to regular radio or read regular newspapers. It's a different era and we have to get used to it - the Republicans control the media. Democrats CAN'T "take to the airwaves." Get used to it.
Don't get mad at the Democrats for being shut out by the media. Instead, we need to build a "media" for people to get information! As I wrote the other day, I think the best place to start this is BuzzFlash. Tell everyone you know to check BuzzFlash every day.
11/16/2002
11/15/2002
Politicized
Also posted at Stand Down:.
This new alert - warning of possible "spectacular" attacks inside the United States...
It used to be, I would worry about what might happen. I worried about going to Comdex last year because of anthrax. I worried about flying.
Now I think about whether the Bush people have been caught at something they're trying to distract us from. I wonder what advantage the Republicans are trying to gain. After going down a checklist like this, and then hearing that the Europeans are also worrying, THEN I start to worry that this one might be for real.
This is the consequence of Bush politicizing the war on terrorism. There were several phony terrorism alerts, each one coming immediately after some embarrassing revelation - like the Harken stories hitting the press. Remember when Ashcroft came on TV from Moscow to talk about "dirty bombs" and later we found out the guy had really been caught a month previously? Remember how the terrorist alerts STOPPED after the press started questioning the timing?
And then there was the war vote, timed exactly for the election...
So they have politicized the war on terrorism. The public cannot trust the government. Imagine the divisions at home if the Iraq adventure goes poorly. We're set up for a fall.
This new alert - warning of possible "spectacular" attacks inside the United States...
It used to be, I would worry about what might happen. I worried about going to Comdex last year because of anthrax. I worried about flying.
Now I think about whether the Bush people have been caught at something they're trying to distract us from. I wonder what advantage the Republicans are trying to gain. After going down a checklist like this, and then hearing that the Europeans are also worrying, THEN I start to worry that this one might be for real.
This is the consequence of Bush politicizing the war on terrorism. There were several phony terrorism alerts, each one coming immediately after some embarrassing revelation - like the Harken stories hitting the press. Remember when Ashcroft came on TV from Moscow to talk about "dirty bombs" and later we found out the guy had really been caught a month previously? Remember how the terrorist alerts STOPPED after the press started questioning the timing?
And then there was the war vote, timed exactly for the election...
So they have politicized the war on terrorism. The public cannot trust the government. Imagine the divisions at home if the Iraq adventure goes poorly. We're set up for a fall.
Something Cool
Here's something cool. And it's not about right-wingers or Bush or Republicans or corrupt corporations.
Waldman Report
This piece, over at The Waldman Report, is good. He agrees with me, so he must be brilliant. "One of the messages of Cleland's loss is that it doesn't matter what a Democrat's ideology is - Cleland, after all, was a moderate who voted for Bush's tax cut and his Iraq resolution. Republicans are always going to call Democrats liberals and question their patriotism. If they'll do it to a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam, they'll do it to anybody. "
Read down to where he writes,
Read down to where he writes,
What might have happened if Cleland had aired an ad like this?"When his country called, Saxby Chambliss dodged the draft. Max Cleland volunteered - and came home an injured war hero. Now draft dodger Chambliss has the nerve to question Max Cleland's patriotism. Every time Chambliss does it, he spits in the eye of every Georgian who's served his country. Does draft dodger Saxby Chambliss have any shame?"
Yes, That's Exactly Right
As a matter of fact, yes, I do sit around and bitch about Republicans all day, every day.
Good For the Country
In a Washington Post interview President-Elect Gore says, ""I could have handled the whole thing differently," he told the Post Magazine, "and instead of making a concession speech, launched a four-year, rear-guard guerrilla campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Bush presidency and to mobilize for a rematch. And there was no shortage of advice to do that.""
Gore's right; that sort of thing is not good for the country. Gore puts Country over Party. Of course, this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected. Then and now the leadership of the Republican Party has made it quite clear that they put Party over Country.
Update - I need to clear up some wording. I was referring to the preceding paragraph about launching a rear-guard guerilla campaign to undermine the presidency, not the preceding sentence about putting Country over Party, when I said "this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected." The Republicans put the good of their party over the good of the country, and worked to undermine the Clinton presidency from day 1.
Gore's right; that sort of thing is not good for the country. Gore puts Country over Party. Of course, this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected. Then and now the leadership of the Republican Party has made it quite clear that they put Party over Country.
Update - I need to clear up some wording. I was referring to the preceding paragraph about launching a rear-guard guerilla campaign to undermine the presidency, not the preceding sentence about putting Country over Party, when I said "this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected." The Republicans put the good of their party over the good of the country, and worked to undermine the Clinton presidency from day 1.
Noosphereblues
I was reading Noosphere Blues, which clued me in to a good Mike Finley piece, Talking John Birch Blues.
Taking Money Out of the Economy
This story today - the Bush Administration is "privatizing" 850,000 federal jobs. That's HALF the federal civilian workers. That's 850,000 people - how many families? - going from good union jobs with benefits and job security to low-wage, no-benefit, no-security positions (while the good stuff rises to a few rich people at the top.) They say it should save more than 30%.
And remember, Bush also changed the rules to allow corporations with a history of violating the law to bid for contracts.
Update - It's not half of all government jobs, it's the jobs that are not "inherently governmental." "Those jobs are defined as "commercial activities," like running cafeterias, making travel arrangements and other tasks that are routinely done in the private sector. The change would not apply to any policy-making or political job, or most managerial ones. There's a NYTimes story here.
And remember, Bush also changed the rules to allow corporations with a history of violating the law to bid for contracts.
Update - It's not half of all government jobs, it's the jobs that are not "inherently governmental." "Those jobs are defined as "commercial activities," like running cafeterias, making travel arrangements and other tasks that are routinely done in the private sector. The change would not apply to any policy-making or political job, or most managerial ones. There's a NYTimes story here.
11/14/2002
Which is More Important to Them?
There's the war on terror, and there's the war on gay's. Which is more important? If you're just USING the war on terror to obtain power, so you can do things like go after the gays, the choice is clear.
Remember hearing about the shortage of Arabic translators? NOTHING is as important as the right-wing agenda.
Remember hearing about the shortage of Arabic translators? NOTHING is as important as the right-wing agenda.
Stock Market Idiocy
Stocks are way up again. From this story, "Thursday's gains followed news that sales at the nation's retailers were flat in October, better than the 0.2 percent decline analysts expected."
Retail sales didn't go up. They just didn't drop as much as investors expected, so stocks go UP!
We're in a stock bubble again. Watch out. And if you're expecting a pension from Honeywell ... uh ... well ... good luck.
Retail sales didn't go up. They just didn't drop as much as investors expected, so stocks go UP!
"People are looking for reasons to buy stocks, rather than sell them. When investor psychology changes, that is what happens. Two months ago nobody wanted to buy," said Michael Murphy, head trader for Wachovia Securities.Here's more "upbeat" news today to send stocks even higher: Sprint PCS to Lay Off 1,600 Workers, Tokyo Stocks Tumble to New Lows Again, Credit Suisse Reports $1.4B Loss, Mall Retailers Earnings Slide, PG&E Reports Drop in Third Quarter, Greenspan Sees Economy 'Soft Patch', Sears Stock Tumbles on Downgrade, GE's Aura Rattled by Worries, Skepticism, AMD to Cut 15 Percent of Work Force, Argentina to Miss World Bank Payment, and my favorite, because I've been writing about the huge pension problem, Honeywell: $1.7 Billion Pension Deficit. And what is Honeywell putting in the pension plan to make up the deficit? ""We anticipate a substantial portion of any such contribution would consist of Honeywell stock," the company said."
We're in a stock bubble again. Watch out. And if you're expecting a pension from Honeywell ... uh ... well ... good luck.
It Isn't Working, So Do it More
Bush's plan for fixing the economy is to cut taxes for the rich and cut government spending. Got that? Redistributing the money upward while cutting programs that benefit the middle class and poor (and don't forget the people who will be laid off because of spending cuts).
Already working people pay a tax not paid by the rich - the "payroll tax" - and that money is currently being redistributed out to the very rich through tax cuts and debt interest payments. Most people don't understand about this tax - that it is ONLY paid by lower and middle-income people. And, to be repetitive, let me repeat, this is a tax that is paid by poor and middle-class people and redistributed to the rich. That's what Gore's "lockbox" was all about - preventing this money from being handed to the rich. When Rush says the rich pay most of the taxes, this tax is not part of the calculation, and never mind that the rich pay more because they have most of the income. (And, of course, the Democrats haven't been telling the public about this because it might upset the Donor Class.)
Republicans believe in "supply-side" economics - if you concentrate money at the top the rich will build factories, which will hire people and that will create demand for the goods the factories produce. The rich-worshippers say, "have you ever been given a job by a poor person?" We have a CONSUMER economy, but let's send the money up to the top so it can be put in offshore accounts, instead of distributing it out to the consumers. Right. I saw a comment the other day after a weblog entry - I forget where - that a nine-year-old can figure it out: "Daddy, you have three factories but only enough customers for two, so why would you build a fourth factory?"
We need policies that get more money into the hands of more people who will spend it on goods. That's called "demand-side" economics. It's redistributing the money from the top and spreading it out among the people. It is the opposite of concentrating the wealth at the top, and historically THIS is what has worked to help ailing economies. Companies hire when they have customers with money walking in the door.
Already working people pay a tax not paid by the rich - the "payroll tax" - and that money is currently being redistributed out to the very rich through tax cuts and debt interest payments. Most people don't understand about this tax - that it is ONLY paid by lower and middle-income people. And, to be repetitive, let me repeat, this is a tax that is paid by poor and middle-class people and redistributed to the rich. That's what Gore's "lockbox" was all about - preventing this money from being handed to the rich. When Rush says the rich pay most of the taxes, this tax is not part of the calculation, and never mind that the rich pay more because they have most of the income. (And, of course, the Democrats haven't been telling the public about this because it might upset the Donor Class.)
Republicans believe in "supply-side" economics - if you concentrate money at the top the rich will build factories, which will hire people and that will create demand for the goods the factories produce. The rich-worshippers say, "have you ever been given a job by a poor person?" We have a CONSUMER economy, but let's send the money up to the top so it can be put in offshore accounts, instead of distributing it out to the consumers. Right. I saw a comment the other day after a weblog entry - I forget where - that a nine-year-old can figure it out: "Daddy, you have three factories but only enough customers for two, so why would you build a fourth factory?"
We need policies that get more money into the hands of more people who will spend it on goods. That's called "demand-side" economics. It's redistributing the money from the top and spreading it out among the people. It is the opposite of concentrating the wealth at the top, and historically THIS is what has worked to help ailing economies. Companies hire when they have customers with money walking in the door.
11/13/2002
Another Part of their Strategy
I've been noticing that the Republicans have another strategy working. When the Democrats propose ANYTHING, they put together a package that wipes out something important to people, NAME IT the same as what the Democrats proposed, and then hammer the Democrats by saying, "But you proposed it in the first place!"
The rebate portion of the tax cuts was proposed by Democrats. Bush took it over, used it to hammer through the huge tax cuts for the rich, then even mailed out a campaign letter to the public announcing "his" tax rebates, and then the actual checks had the slogan of the Bush 2000 campaign printed on them!
The Fatherland Security was proposed by Democrats and Bush resisted. Then the Republicans put together a package of union-busting legislation AND used it to get rid of any threat of an independent investigation into 9/11. They hammered the Democrats with this all through the election.
The Iraq vote was a little more tricky than that. By announcing they would proceed to war without asking the Congress, they provoked Democrats (and others) into demanding a vote. So when they demanded the vote as part of the election campaign, they could hammer Democrats, saying they asked for it in the first place. Of course, the whole thing was a plan to get it placed in the election campaign.
It seems like the Democratic leadership just won't ever figure out that these Republicans are not the least bit interested in working with anyone else. ANY time they try to "work with" the Republicans they get hammered. The Republicans aren't even interested in governing. Only in accumulating power. How many times will Lucy have to pull away the football?
The rebate portion of the tax cuts was proposed by Democrats. Bush took it over, used it to hammer through the huge tax cuts for the rich, then even mailed out a campaign letter to the public announcing "his" tax rebates, and then the actual checks had the slogan of the Bush 2000 campaign printed on them!
The Fatherland Security was proposed by Democrats and Bush resisted. Then the Republicans put together a package of union-busting legislation AND used it to get rid of any threat of an independent investigation into 9/11. They hammered the Democrats with this all through the election.
The Iraq vote was a little more tricky than that. By announcing they would proceed to war without asking the Congress, they provoked Democrats (and others) into demanding a vote. So when they demanded the vote as part of the election campaign, they could hammer Democrats, saying they asked for it in the first place. Of course, the whole thing was a plan to get it placed in the election campaign.
It seems like the Democratic leadership just won't ever figure out that these Republicans are not the least bit interested in working with anyone else. ANY time they try to "work with" the Republicans they get hammered. The Republicans aren't even interested in governing. Only in accumulating power. How many times will Lucy have to pull away the football?
Commonweal Had a Problem
If you signed up for Commonweal Institute's newsletter before about 2:00 Wednesday they didn't get your request, so please sign up again.
Go See Maru
Maru has posted a MUST-SEE about Democrats bending over for the Republicans! The links are not working, so scroll to Wednesday Nov. 13, "Having learned nothing, Dems plan to fold on judicial nominees".
11/12/2002
Sold Out the Unions!
Two Senate Dems sold out the unions. Democrats John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted with Bush
Daschle added to the betrayal, "Though Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat opposed to the department, may try to wage a filibuster against it, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has said he would oppose any such delay." What? The REPUBLICANS filibustered this bill for months AND IT DIDN'T COST THEM A THING IN THE ELECTION! In fact, their tactics energized their base, and their base turned out to vote! Now it's the Democrats' opportunity to stand up for workers, and what does Daschle say? I take back what I said defending Daschle. DUMP HIM!
Additionally, "In addition, the new department would effectively be able to bypass civil service rules in promoting, firing and transferring workers, the aides said." This means patronage - only Republicans will get jobs in the government now. Democrats will be fired.
Maybe some recall petitions are in order here! Maybe if they started hearing from us maybe this stuff would stop.
Daschle added to the betrayal, "Though Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat opposed to the department, may try to wage a filibuster against it, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has said he would oppose any such delay." What? The REPUBLICANS filibustered this bill for months AND IT DIDN'T COST THEM A THING IN THE ELECTION! In fact, their tactics energized their base, and their base turned out to vote! Now it's the Democrats' opportunity to stand up for workers, and what does Daschle say? I take back what I said defending Daschle. DUMP HIM!
Additionally, "In addition, the new department would effectively be able to bypass civil service rules in promoting, firing and transferring workers, the aides said." This means patronage - only Republicans will get jobs in the government now. Democrats will be fired.
Maybe some recall petitions are in order here! Maybe if they started hearing from us maybe this stuff would stop.
More Job Cuts Coming
In the last couple of weeks a number of people I know have been laid off.
Anyway, from Financial Times today:
And the stock market will react by going up another 200 points.
Anyway, from Financial Times today:
The Business Roundtable, an association of 150 CEOs whose companies employ over 10m workers, said a survey of its membership showed that 60 per cent were expecting to cut jobs next year against just 11 per cent who said employment in their companies would grow. More than 80 per cent said they expected to hold or cut capital expenditure over the coming year.What, we're here with no paddle?
And the stock market will react by going up another 200 points.
The Path Out of the Bush
Let me write some more about the research that led me to hook up with the Commonweal Institute. My own path into this adventure was through the Clinton impeachment and what led up to it. If you followed the news closely, you started hearing that much of the anti-Clinton sleaze was coming from organizations financed by just ONE GUY – Richard Mellon Scaife.
After Hillary Clinton referred to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” articles began to appear documenting pieces of this web of organizations. The American Spectator, funded by Scaife, was the lead sleaze-spreader. The Federalist Society, funded by Scaife (and a few others), was supplying the worker bees. Ken Starr, of the Federalist Society, wanted to leave to take a University position funded by Scaife. Many of those employed by Starr were from the Federalist Society. Scaife money was bankrolling Paula Jones and her legal representatives. Etc...
Then I started noticing that Scaife and some others were behind a hell of a lot more than JUST the anti-Clinton effort. For example, from a 1998 Salon article about Scaife's anti-Clinton efforts, The man behind the mask:
Blinded By The Right crystallized this in my mind. From talking to people about all of this I realize that I am not alone in this. The book brought it together for many people. It became real.
Please visit Commonweal’s information page and read some of what is there. This information takes a while to percolate, but then you start to see that there is a path back out of the Bush.
After Hillary Clinton referred to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” articles began to appear documenting pieces of this web of organizations. The American Spectator, funded by Scaife, was the lead sleaze-spreader. The Federalist Society, funded by Scaife (and a few others), was supplying the worker bees. Ken Starr, of the Federalist Society, wanted to leave to take a University position funded by Scaife. Many of those employed by Starr were from the Federalist Society. Scaife money was bankrolling Paula Jones and her legal representatives. Etc...
Then I started noticing that Scaife and some others were behind a hell of a lot more than JUST the anti-Clinton effort. For example, from a 1998 Salon article about Scaife's anti-Clinton efforts, The man behind the mask:
"The victories we're celebrating today didn't begin last Tuesday," Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner Jr. told a meeting of supporters in 1994 just after the Republican sweep of the House of Representatives. "They started more than 20 years ago when Dick Scaife had the vision to see the need for a conservative intellectual movement in America. These organizations built the intellectual case that was necessary before political leaders like Newt Gingrich could translate their ideas into practical political alternatives."I started looking into this on the web. But at that point it still seemed more like paranoid conspiracy theory stuff than something real. Then, earlier this year, I read David Brock’s book, Blinded By The Right. This book, written by the very journalist who had initiated the attacks on Clinton, talked about this web of organizations, some of the participants, and the money behind it. It was a revelation – it wasn’t just some paranoid fantasy, it was really happening! Here was confirmation that this web existed.
Blinded By The Right crystallized this in my mind. From talking to people about all of this I realize that I am not alone in this. The book brought it together for many people. It became real.
Please visit Commonweal’s information page and read some of what is there. This information takes a while to percolate, but then you start to see that there is a path back out of the Bush.
Why I Don't Use the Term "Conservative"
I don't use the term "conservative" to describe this current crop of right wingers. That's THEIR description of themselves. These people stole the term from the honest and honorable traditional conservatives, like John McCain, and then booted them out of their "movement." (Look what they did to McCain in South Carolina.)
These right-wingers are the same crowd that used to talk about "The Jew York Times" and the Jew Media." (I wrote about this in September.) They've learned to tone that stuff down but much of their nonsense really is largely the same crackpot message - "government schools are socialist," "ban the teaching of evolution and put prayer back in the schools," "we're a Christian Nation." Back then they were not called "conservatives." They were called the "far right" and the "ultra right" and the "Christian Right." In fact, in the 50's and 60's the originators of this movement, the John Birchers and Libertarians and Liberty Lobby types were known as the "kooks." Real, honest conservatives wanted nothing to do with them.
In fact, their very use of the word "conservative" shows how this movement works. The word "conservative" has positive connotations in the public's mind so these far-right ideologues took over the word, and used their bullying tactics to toss the old-fashioned conservatives out of the Republican Party. They needed a respectable cover for what they're up to.
Suppose they decided to describe themselves as "those-who-are-best-for-your-interests". I don't think I would be using that phrasing when referring to them. For the same reasons I don't use "conservative."
Perhaps the term "regressives" is the best description. Who was it that thought that up the other day?
These right-wingers are the same crowd that used to talk about "The Jew York Times" and the Jew Media." (I wrote about this in September.) They've learned to tone that stuff down but much of their nonsense really is largely the same crackpot message - "government schools are socialist," "ban the teaching of evolution and put prayer back in the schools," "we're a Christian Nation." Back then they were not called "conservatives." They were called the "far right" and the "ultra right" and the "Christian Right." In fact, in the 50's and 60's the originators of this movement, the John Birchers and Libertarians and Liberty Lobby types were known as the "kooks." Real, honest conservatives wanted nothing to do with them.
In fact, their very use of the word "conservative" shows how this movement works. The word "conservative" has positive connotations in the public's mind so these far-right ideologues took over the word, and used their bullying tactics to toss the old-fashioned conservatives out of the Republican Party. They needed a respectable cover for what they're up to.
Suppose they decided to describe themselves as "those-who-are-best-for-your-interests". I don't think I would be using that phrasing when referring to them. For the same reasons I don't use "conservative."
Perhaps the term "regressives" is the best description. Who was it that thought that up the other day?
The Commonweal Institute - "the Heritage Foundation of the Left"
Some time ago I wrote that I have taken a position at a public policy institute. I have been working with the Commonweal Institute , which I like to describe as “the Heritage Foundation of the Left.” I’ve been helping them get organized, get their new website up, and commence fundraising activities. Our hope is that we can raise sufficient seed money to launch the kind of PR and fundraising campaign that is required to develop the research and education institute and communications “engine” that is needed to start to bring the public back toward the center, and bring progressive and moderate voices back into the public “marketplace of ideas.”
The Nov. 5 election confirms just how bad things are.
Do I have to describe the problem? The far-right is now the government. Everywhere we turn – us “liberals” or “progressives” or “moderates,” or whatever we choose to call ourselves – we suffer heartbreaking setbacks. We see environmental protections removed, industries allowed to violate laws, women's health programs losing funding, huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich – resulting in less and less money available for education, health care and all kinds of other social necessities. The list goes on and on and seems to get worse every day.
An approach to this problem
One approach to doing something about it is to learn how the right did it – and then do that. So I’d like to write about the right-wing movement's campaign to move the public to the right. By examining how it was done we can learn how to counter it, and move the public and the country back into balance, back to the center – back to sanity. And then I’ll describe the Commonweal Institute’s plan to do something about it.
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it (Scroll down about 250-300 paragraphs)
Research.
I hooked up with the Commonweal Institute because I’ve been doing research into how the right has been able to be so effective. The growth of this ideological movement didn’t happen by accident. The American public has been the target of an ongoing, deliberate, planned campaign to push them to the right. (The Commonweal Institute has put up a page of links to articles, reports and resources on this subject, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html.)
There really was a plan.
You have to look back a few decades to see how it started. In the early 1970’s a small group of wealthy far-right and Christian-right individuals, foundations and corporations began funding a few think tanks and a number of front organizations with the intention of building a “movement.” Over time, using tons of cash, the right has built up an “idea machine” whose “idea product” is aggressively marketed to the public through a number of communications channels. But it really comes back to just a small number of individuals, foundations and corporations providing the underlying funding and coordination for it all.
Here’s how the process works:
Their “think tanks” come up with studies and policy papers that have the appearance of scholarship. These are the “ideas.” (Unlike legitimate scholarship, the results of this process are designed and selected to support their ideological agenda.) This information is translated by marketing and psychology professionals into “popular language” – easy-to-understand language that resonates emotionally and culturally rather than logically – with help from polling, focus groups, interviewing and other modern marketing techniques. The resulting simplified, “popularized” phrasing is pumped out to the public through a multitude of channels, by “experts” and “scholars” employed by the think tanks or otherwise paid by the movement. It is picked up and repeated – amplified – by far-right outlets such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times, Fox News, and a multitude of right-wing columnists, pundits, authors and celebrities.
Communications engine.
When the right gets going with their “communications engine” it’s hard to avoid being exposed to whatever their message-of-the-day might be. It seems to come from every direction you turn. It isn’t hard to understand that almost all of the voices on AM radio, all day and night, are part of the right-wing network. But people are not aware how many of the commentators on TV, how many of the op-ed pieces or letters to the editor in newspapers, “sources” and experts in news stories, “studies” referred to in magazine articles, and books reviewed in the paper actually originate from and are predominately funded by just the few sources.
Examples of “idea product.”
Here are some examples of right-wing “idea product” that is aggressively repeated, moving the public to the right. Perhaps you have heard the messages “public schools are failing,” “taxes take money out of the economy” or “Social Security is going broke.” You have probably heard these repeated so many times by so many “experts” that you think they are true – established facts. “Everybody knows” these things. They have become “conventional wisdom.” But they’re not true. These messages were designed to prime the public to accept specific right-wing plans.
Politicians harvesting the results.
Over time the public becomes so inundated with the right-wing messaging – without hearing from opposing voices – that they come to believe what they are hearing. It is after this process that the right-wing politicians step in to harvest the results. Political candidates offering “solutions” to these widely-understood “problems” have an advantage over candidates who do not “offer alternatives.”
Without a capacity like that of the right wing to set the public agenda and frame the public debate, moderate and progressive politicians are at, and will remain at, a distinct disadvantage.
Long term strategy.
The right-wing movement follows a long-term strategy. Years before we heard about “vouchers" we started hearing that “public schools are failing.” This has been drummed into the public mind for so long that most people now believe that it’s a fact. After many years of this, along come the vouchers and other “competition” schemes. And the vouchers and other schemes are only steps along the road to the ultimate strategic goal – total privatization of schools. The right wingers say they want to get rid of “socialist schools” and they mean it.
Money, money, money.
In the 1990s this group of powerful right-wingers spent over $1 BILLION on this process. I’m not even talking about political contributions or 3rd-party issue ads. An incredible amount of money has gone into their efforts. Their think tanks and front organizations crank out these messages to such an extent that the far right now virtually monopolizes the nation’s “marketplace of ideas.”
And it hasn’t stopped. The largest right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, will double its funding by the 2004 election. An additional $400 million will be pumped into over 500 other right wing groups influencing the public's views and perspectives on the key issues facing our nation.
That is a description of the process that has moved the public to the right over the last few decades. There is a lot of research available, detailing the establishment and financing of the movement, as well as the individuals, organizations, institutes and foundations involved. We have made available a collection of links at Commonweal Institute’s Information page, http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. I encourage everyone reading this to study these resources.
Understanding
Understanding what the right is doing and how they are doing it makes you less susceptible to it. Understanding seems to bring an immunity, you start to be able to spot the process at work. And understanding it helps you explain it to others. I strongly encourage you to take a look at the articles at Commonweal's information page, and refer others to this information. As more and more people understand what has been going on the right will be less and less effective.
It’s not just me.
Summing up this section, let me refer you to Scott Rosenberg’s Salon weblog, just the other day:
What is Commonweal Institute going to do?
The smartass answer is, we’re going to do what the right-wing movement has done. We’re going to be a “Heritage Foundation of the Left.”
Here’s the Commonweal Institute blurb:
The Commonweal Institute will pursue a long term strategy. Our long-term goal is to move people’s underlying attitudes away from the right wing’s agenda and back to a moderate/progressive perspective.
A very important distinction.
Let me get one thing out of the way right now. When I say Commonweal Institute is going to “do what the right does,” I do NOT mean we are going to lie, deceive, mislead, trick and/or fool the public.
We progressives and moderates have a clear advantage in this battle of ideas. Put simply, our task is not to convince blue-collar workers to give up their Social Security, pensions, healthcare, environmental protections, worker protections and all the rest of the social benefits and protections we have built over the years so that some rich white guy can have a bigger jet. That’s what the right wing movement does. That’s why with all the billions spent and all the domination of the media they STILL can’t get past 50%, even after convincing most people not to even vote! We don’t have to lie, trick or otherwise fool the public to get them thinking our way.
Changing underlying attitudes takes work.
People respond best to stories that trigger an emotional response, using words that evoke images in the mind and metaphors that hook facts to their deeper feelings, giving them a sense of “Oh yeah, that's right.” Just like the right, we will use contemporary marketing and public relations techniques such as polling, interviewing and focus groups to identify the deeper concerns of target groups. We will “translate” the “idea product” of think tanks and organizations into this kind of specialized language.
Creating our own conventional wisdom.
Just as the right has repeated “public schools are failing” and “Social Security is going broke,” in order to lead people to their agenda, the Commonweal Institute will create honest conventional wisdom that reflects moderate and progressive principles.
Infrastructure.
The kind of organization we’re talking about creating with Commonweal Institute is “infrastructure.” This is the kind of organization that the right has built up. It does not necessarily support particular causes – it is “multi-issue.” The particular infrastructure need that Commonweal Institute will address is to change underlying public attitudes, by putting out a more general message to a wide mainstream audience. It will translate particular issues into a wider framework of understanding and communicate that perspective to a wide, mainstream audience.
Reaching a wide audience.
One of the methods the Commonweal Institute will use is to reach out to wide, diverse audiences, using multiple channels of communication. Commonweal will also target specific demographic groups with targeted messages. Commonweal’s channels of communication will include books, articles, columns, commentaries, letters to the editor, newsletters, on-line information, expert speakers, scholars, talk show guests, video clips, tapes, media training for activists and advertisements, as well as providing talking points and other ready-to-go materials for use by opinion leaders, candidates, public speakers, educators, activists and the general public.
While single-issue organizations offer similar resources for their issues, they tend to be financially dependant on regularly reaching out to their own base of supporters. Many have limited budgets and cannot reach as many as they would like. Fundraising is difficult and ongoing, and it makes sense to reach people who will tend to support your cause. It isn’t typically economical for single-issue organizations to spend the money to reach out to the mainstream general public. So out of necessity there is a lot of preaching to the converted. Also they tend more and more to be fighting shorter-term defensive battles, as they are under constant attack by the right-wing movement.
To reach out to wide general audiences, talking about a number of issues, you need a different kind of organization. We need to fund and develop infrastructure – a multi-issue research and communications engine. This is what Commonweal Institute is.
Return on investment.
Let’s say you support an organization that is working to protect the remaining California redwoods. Let’s say that this organization has spent $200,000 a year for 10 years, or $2 million. Now, after the November 5 election, let’s say that one Federalist Society judge gets a chance to make a ruling on logging, or the Bush Administration gets their “forest fire protection” initiative passed. Those redwoods are under immediate threat. How much of that $2 million is down the drain? This kind of loss is happening more and more, because progressives and moderates have not built up the kind of infrastructure that works to change the underlying attitudes that would have prevented the losses suffered on November 5, and would bring forth immediate public reaction to nonsense like “forest fire protection” that is clearly intended to benefit logging companies.
An organization like the Commonweal Institute will increase the return on investment for organizations working on particular causes.
It’s Not About Politicians.
It’s not enough just to support organizations that fight for individual issues, or politicians with attractive programs and political parties with good platforms. Politicians and parties follow where the people are. And it especially isn’t enough to talk to others who are just like ourselves—we need to reach out to others, to involve more people. We must expand the base of citizens who actively support progressive and moderate programs and principles. Bringing the public back home is a big task, one that moderate and progressive politicians and parties can’t handle alone.
It is important to understand that there is a distinction between the idea development & communication process, and the political process. We aren’t going to change the country by choosing better politicians – we’re going to have to change the public’s underlying attitudes and willingness to get involved. It is after the attitude change occurs that the politicians and political parties can step in – they reap the results from a public that is primed to accept their programs. If we can do this work to change underlying attitudes our politicians will have an easier job – running on issues that the public understands, with programs they are ready to accept, rather than trying to introduce and explain our issues as part of their campaigns.
Growing the base.
Another effect of changing underlying public attitudes toward the moderate/progressive perspective will be the growth of the base of support for moderate and progressive organizations and politicians. Environmental, social, health, and other types of organizations will see their own funding base increase. They will also have some of their burden reduced as government again picks up some of the load.
Some good news.
Lack of money is not what has been handicapping moderates and progressives. There is actually a lot of money available on the moderate/progressive side. It just hasn’t been used as effectively as the money poured into right-wing idea machine infrastructure.
Much of the philanthropic money of moderates and progressives is donated on a program basis – funding specific programs attempting to achieve specific results, lots of pilot programs – but not enough general support for ongoing operations and not enough discretionary money directed to specific programs. The right has provided general operating funding – money that can be used any way the organizations want – as long as it is spent to further the right-wing ideological movement, according to their specific long-term strategic goals. Moderate and progressive philanthropy needs to do much more of this.
Until this funding pattern changes, organizations like the Commonweal Institute will need to be funded by individual donors who understand the necessity of the task at hand and want to help out.
Whew!
OK, I wrote a lot here today. Let me sum up:
Please visit Commonweal Institute’s new website. There are four points on the front page, each leading to more info on that subject.
Please take a look at the collection of resources on Commonweal’s Information Page. No matter what else you take from this, learning about what the right-wing has been doing and telling others is one of the most effective ways to immunize yourself and combat their pervasive messaging!
And, of course, if you agree that it is time to work “to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas,” please help build the Commonweal Institute.
And please, leave a comment here about all of this by clicking on the word "Comment" just below this sentence.
The Nov. 5 election confirms just how bad things are.
Do I have to describe the problem? The far-right is now the government. Everywhere we turn – us “liberals” or “progressives” or “moderates,” or whatever we choose to call ourselves – we suffer heartbreaking setbacks. We see environmental protections removed, industries allowed to violate laws, women's health programs losing funding, huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich – resulting in less and less money available for education, health care and all kinds of other social necessities. The list goes on and on and seems to get worse every day.
An approach to this problem
One approach to doing something about it is to learn how the right did it – and then do that. So I’d like to write about the right-wing movement's campaign to move the public to the right. By examining how it was done we can learn how to counter it, and move the public and the country back into balance, back to the center – back to sanity. And then I’ll describe the Commonweal Institute’s plan to do something about it.
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it (Scroll down about 250-300 paragraphs)
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Research.
I hooked up with the Commonweal Institute because I’ve been doing research into how the right has been able to be so effective. The growth of this ideological movement didn’t happen by accident. The American public has been the target of an ongoing, deliberate, planned campaign to push them to the right. (The Commonweal Institute has put up a page of links to articles, reports and resources on this subject, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html.)
There really was a plan.
You have to look back a few decades to see how it started. In the early 1970’s a small group of wealthy far-right and Christian-right individuals, foundations and corporations began funding a few think tanks and a number of front organizations with the intention of building a “movement.” Over time, using tons of cash, the right has built up an “idea machine” whose “idea product” is aggressively marketed to the public through a number of communications channels. But it really comes back to just a small number of individuals, foundations and corporations providing the underlying funding and coordination for it all.
Here’s how the process works:
Their “think tanks” come up with studies and policy papers that have the appearance of scholarship. These are the “ideas.” (Unlike legitimate scholarship, the results of this process are designed and selected to support their ideological agenda.) This information is translated by marketing and psychology professionals into “popular language” – easy-to-understand language that resonates emotionally and culturally rather than logically – with help from polling, focus groups, interviewing and other modern marketing techniques. The resulting simplified, “popularized” phrasing is pumped out to the public through a multitude of channels, by “experts” and “scholars” employed by the think tanks or otherwise paid by the movement. It is picked up and repeated – amplified – by far-right outlets such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times, Fox News, and a multitude of right-wing columnists, pundits, authors and celebrities.
Communications engine.
When the right gets going with their “communications engine” it’s hard to avoid being exposed to whatever their message-of-the-day might be. It seems to come from every direction you turn. It isn’t hard to understand that almost all of the voices on AM radio, all day and night, are part of the right-wing network. But people are not aware how many of the commentators on TV, how many of the op-ed pieces or letters to the editor in newspapers, “sources” and experts in news stories, “studies” referred to in magazine articles, and books reviewed in the paper actually originate from and are predominately funded by just the few sources.
Examples of “idea product.”
Here are some examples of right-wing “idea product” that is aggressively repeated, moving the public to the right. Perhaps you have heard the messages “public schools are failing,” “taxes take money out of the economy” or “Social Security is going broke.” You have probably heard these repeated so many times by so many “experts” that you think they are true – established facts. “Everybody knows” these things. They have become “conventional wisdom.” But they’re not true. These messages were designed to prime the public to accept specific right-wing plans.
Politicians harvesting the results.
Over time the public becomes so inundated with the right-wing messaging – without hearing from opposing voices – that they come to believe what they are hearing. It is after this process that the right-wing politicians step in to harvest the results. Political candidates offering “solutions” to these widely-understood “problems” have an advantage over candidates who do not “offer alternatives.”
Without a capacity like that of the right wing to set the public agenda and frame the public debate, moderate and progressive politicians are at, and will remain at, a distinct disadvantage.
Long term strategy.
The right-wing movement follows a long-term strategy. Years before we heard about “vouchers" we started hearing that “public schools are failing.” This has been drummed into the public mind for so long that most people now believe that it’s a fact. After many years of this, along come the vouchers and other “competition” schemes. And the vouchers and other schemes are only steps along the road to the ultimate strategic goal – total privatization of schools. The right wingers say they want to get rid of “socialist schools” and they mean it.
Money, money, money.
In the 1990s this group of powerful right-wingers spent over $1 BILLION on this process. I’m not even talking about political contributions or 3rd-party issue ads. An incredible amount of money has gone into their efforts. Their think tanks and front organizations crank out these messages to such an extent that the far right now virtually monopolizes the nation’s “marketplace of ideas.”
And it hasn’t stopped. The largest right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, will double its funding by the 2004 election. An additional $400 million will be pumped into over 500 other right wing groups influencing the public's views and perspectives on the key issues facing our nation.
That is a description of the process that has moved the public to the right over the last few decades. There is a lot of research available, detailing the establishment and financing of the movement, as well as the individuals, organizations, institutes and foundations involved. We have made available a collection of links at Commonweal Institute’s Information page, http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. I encourage everyone reading this to study these resources.
Understanding
Understanding what the right is doing and how they are doing it makes you less susceptible to it. Understanding seems to bring an immunity, you start to be able to spot the process at work. And understanding it helps you explain it to others. I strongly encourage you to take a look at the articles at Commonweal's information page, and refer others to this information. As more and more people understand what has been going on the right will be less and less effective.
It’s not just me.
Summing up this section, let me refer you to Scott Rosenberg’s Salon weblog, just the other day:
"What did the Republicans do in the 1970s? They went back to their roots and created institutions for the long-term. They spent money on think-tanks and local organizations and decided to build a new party from the ground up that appealed to conservatives. They elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the party they built then is the same party that Karl Rove is orchestrating today. The fringe-y think tanks of the '70s -- like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute -- now provide an endless supply of talking-head and op-ed support for right-wing policies. And, give them credit, they're just full of ideas."
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it
What is Commonweal Institute going to do?
The smartass answer is, we’re going to do what the right-wing movement has done. We’re going to be a “Heritage Foundation of the Left.”
Here’s the Commonweal Institute blurb:
The Commonweal Institute is a multi-issue research and educational institute - a think tank - committed to advancing moderate and progressive principles through strategic marketing and aggressive communication of ideas. Our goals: to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas; to revitalize and reenergize the democratic process; to advance the values of fairness, justice, and opportunity and to help create a equitable society with sustainable economic development.The Commonweal Institute is a "think tank" and "communications engine" that will use methods like those used to market everyday products—just like those that the right wing has used so effectively to dominate our nation’s marketplace of ideas. We are committed not only to developing ideas through the think tank part – the research and education institution part – of our concept, but also to advancing moderate and progressive principles through strategic marketing and aggressive communication of ideas. This is the communications engine part of the concept.
The Commonweal Institute will pursue a long term strategy. Our long-term goal is to move people’s underlying attitudes away from the right wing’s agenda and back to a moderate/progressive perspective.
A very important distinction.
Let me get one thing out of the way right now. When I say Commonweal Institute is going to “do what the right does,” I do NOT mean we are going to lie, deceive, mislead, trick and/or fool the public.
We progressives and moderates have a clear advantage in this battle of ideas. Put simply, our task is not to convince blue-collar workers to give up their Social Security, pensions, healthcare, environmental protections, worker protections and all the rest of the social benefits and protections we have built over the years so that some rich white guy can have a bigger jet. That’s what the right wing movement does. That’s why with all the billions spent and all the domination of the media they STILL can’t get past 50%, even after convincing most people not to even vote! We don’t have to lie, trick or otherwise fool the public to get them thinking our way.
Changing underlying attitudes takes work.
People respond best to stories that trigger an emotional response, using words that evoke images in the mind and metaphors that hook facts to their deeper feelings, giving them a sense of “Oh yeah, that's right.” Just like the right, we will use contemporary marketing and public relations techniques such as polling, interviewing and focus groups to identify the deeper concerns of target groups. We will “translate” the “idea product” of think tanks and organizations into this kind of specialized language.
Creating our own conventional wisdom.
Just as the right has repeated “public schools are failing” and “Social Security is going broke,” in order to lead people to their agenda, the Commonweal Institute will create honest conventional wisdom that reflects moderate and progressive principles.
Infrastructure.
The kind of organization we’re talking about creating with Commonweal Institute is “infrastructure.” This is the kind of organization that the right has built up. It does not necessarily support particular causes – it is “multi-issue.” The particular infrastructure need that Commonweal Institute will address is to change underlying public attitudes, by putting out a more general message to a wide mainstream audience. It will translate particular issues into a wider framework of understanding and communicate that perspective to a wide, mainstream audience.
Reaching a wide audience.
One of the methods the Commonweal Institute will use is to reach out to wide, diverse audiences, using multiple channels of communication. Commonweal will also target specific demographic groups with targeted messages. Commonweal’s channels of communication will include books, articles, columns, commentaries, letters to the editor, newsletters, on-line information, expert speakers, scholars, talk show guests, video clips, tapes, media training for activists and advertisements, as well as providing talking points and other ready-to-go materials for use by opinion leaders, candidates, public speakers, educators, activists and the general public.
While single-issue organizations offer similar resources for their issues, they tend to be financially dependant on regularly reaching out to their own base of supporters. Many have limited budgets and cannot reach as many as they would like. Fundraising is difficult and ongoing, and it makes sense to reach people who will tend to support your cause. It isn’t typically economical for single-issue organizations to spend the money to reach out to the mainstream general public. So out of necessity there is a lot of preaching to the converted. Also they tend more and more to be fighting shorter-term defensive battles, as they are under constant attack by the right-wing movement.
To reach out to wide general audiences, talking about a number of issues, you need a different kind of organization. We need to fund and develop infrastructure – a multi-issue research and communications engine. This is what Commonweal Institute is.
Return on investment.
Let’s say you support an organization that is working to protect the remaining California redwoods. Let’s say that this organization has spent $200,000 a year for 10 years, or $2 million. Now, after the November 5 election, let’s say that one Federalist Society judge gets a chance to make a ruling on logging, or the Bush Administration gets their “forest fire protection” initiative passed. Those redwoods are under immediate threat. How much of that $2 million is down the drain? This kind of loss is happening more and more, because progressives and moderates have not built up the kind of infrastructure that works to change the underlying attitudes that would have prevented the losses suffered on November 5, and would bring forth immediate public reaction to nonsense like “forest fire protection” that is clearly intended to benefit logging companies.
An organization like the Commonweal Institute will increase the return on investment for organizations working on particular causes.
It’s Not About Politicians.
It’s not enough just to support organizations that fight for individual issues, or politicians with attractive programs and political parties with good platforms. Politicians and parties follow where the people are. And it especially isn’t enough to talk to others who are just like ourselves—we need to reach out to others, to involve more people. We must expand the base of citizens who actively support progressive and moderate programs and principles. Bringing the public back home is a big task, one that moderate and progressive politicians and parties can’t handle alone.
It is important to understand that there is a distinction between the idea development & communication process, and the political process. We aren’t going to change the country by choosing better politicians – we’re going to have to change the public’s underlying attitudes and willingness to get involved. It is after the attitude change occurs that the politicians and political parties can step in – they reap the results from a public that is primed to accept their programs. If we can do this work to change underlying attitudes our politicians will have an easier job – running on issues that the public understands, with programs they are ready to accept, rather than trying to introduce and explain our issues as part of their campaigns.
Growing the base.
Another effect of changing underlying public attitudes toward the moderate/progressive perspective will be the growth of the base of support for moderate and progressive organizations and politicians. Environmental, social, health, and other types of organizations will see their own funding base increase. They will also have some of their burden reduced as government again picks up some of the load.
Some good news.
Lack of money is not what has been handicapping moderates and progressives. There is actually a lot of money available on the moderate/progressive side. It just hasn’t been used as effectively as the money poured into right-wing idea machine infrastructure.
Much of the philanthropic money of moderates and progressives is donated on a program basis – funding specific programs attempting to achieve specific results, lots of pilot programs – but not enough general support for ongoing operations and not enough discretionary money directed to specific programs. The right has provided general operating funding – money that can be used any way the organizations want – as long as it is spent to further the right-wing ideological movement, according to their specific long-term strategic goals. Moderate and progressive philanthropy needs to do much more of this.
Until this funding pattern changes, organizations like the Commonweal Institute will need to be funded by individual donors who understand the necessity of the task at hand and want to help out.
Whew!
OK, I wrote a lot here today. Let me sum up:
Please visit Commonweal Institute’s new website. There are four points on the front page, each leading to more info on that subject.
Please take a look at the collection of resources on Commonweal’s Information Page. No matter what else you take from this, learning about what the right-wing has been doing and telling others is one of the most effective ways to immunize yourself and combat their pervasive messaging!
And, of course, if you agree that it is time to work “to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas,” please help build the Commonweal Institute.
And please, leave a comment here about all of this by clicking on the word "Comment" just below this sentence.
11/10/2002
The Black Box
Has anyone heard what became of the "black box" flight recorder on Paul Wellstone's plane? The plane was legally required to carry one. Have they found it, and what did it show?
Dems Moving to the Right -- Should Check BuzzFlash Instead
The NY Times today has this analysis claiming that the Democrats lost so many races because "White Moderates" voted Republican. This is probably true, but what does it mean? Does it mean that Democrats need to move to the right to get votes?
My thinking on Democrats moving to the right in response:
The right currently dominates the channels of communication reaching most Americans, and therefore dominate the messaging most Americans receive.
Most Americans do not know what the Administration is DOING, only what they are SAYING. They have no idea of the radical right-wing changes taking place in our country's policies.
White moderates THINK that Republicans are moderates & Democrats are out-of-touch liberals, because that's what they are being messaged by the available information sources.
The Republicans will ALWAYS paint themselves as moderates, and Democrats as "extremist liberals," and will get away with it as long as they control the channels of communication.
As Democrats move to the right in response to this voting pattern it enables the Republicans to move FURTHER to the right.
This has allowed the Bush Administration to move much, much farther to the right than Reagan.
As the Democratic Party moves to the right the Democratic base is eroding - either to Greens or not voting - without growing the base from the middle/right toward which it is moving.
Using conventional media with conventional communications methods there is no way to reach most Americans and alter this cycle.
My conclusion on Democrats moving to the right:
Moving to the right does not improve Democratic prospects, erodes the Democratic base, and harms the country. Right-wing domination of communications channels allows the right to frame public perception of Democratic and Republican positions, so Democratic repositioning is worse than useless - it allows the Republicans to move ever further to the right in response. It also alienates those of us who are Democrats for reasons of principle.
My thoughts on the communication channel problem:
In the 80's the right faced a similar problem (from its perspective) and devised different communication methods to reach the public. Their base learned where to find them. Talk radio, for example. Drudge. (Unfortunately these included bombastic ridicule, insults, accusations, lies, etc. Remember Newt's rise, on C-SPAN?)
The right's base grew as a result of being able to freely communicate their perspective through these new channels.
You can get good information on the web.
Those of us who are getting information on the web are getting very different information than what most Americans are getting.
Because of this most of us don't understand how different our understanding of events is from what most Americans are thinking.
Progressive ranks are growing as a result of the information available on the web.
People in possession of information makes a difference. They are able to inform and influence others.
The right effectively uses The Drudge Report as a centralized information distribution source from the right-wing perspective. (It used to be Limbaugh, but the Internet came along, so now Limbaugh is often repeating what's on Drudge.) If something appears on Drudge, you soon see it running through most communication channels.
We need to get as many people as possible checking a good centralized online news source for information that comes from our perspective.
From what I can find, BuzzFlash is the best online daily news source from our perspective. (Even with its odd name.)
My suggestion for mitigating the right-wing domination of communications channels:
We need to encourage everyone we know to check BuzzFlash daily. A centralized source of progressive-perspective news will unify us, give us a place to unify and grow our base, while receiving the information to influence others. (And then, of course, get them all reading weblogs as well.)
My thinking on Democrats moving to the right in response:
My conclusion on Democrats moving to the right:
Moving to the right does not improve Democratic prospects, erodes the Democratic base, and harms the country. Right-wing domination of communications channels allows the right to frame public perception of Democratic and Republican positions, so Democratic repositioning is worse than useless - it allows the Republicans to move ever further to the right in response. It also alienates those of us who are Democrats for reasons of principle.
My thoughts on the communication channel problem:
My suggestion for mitigating the right-wing domination of communications channels:
We need to encourage everyone we know to check BuzzFlash daily. A centralized source of progressive-perspective news will unify us, give us a place to unify and grow our base, while receiving the information to influence others. (And then, of course, get them all reading weblogs as well.)
11/09/2002
Investigate Sept. 11
Counterspin Central says the #1 item on the Democrat's agenda should be to demand a public, independent investigation into September 11. I wholeheartedly agree. Go read about it.
11/08/2002
Too funny
This story is funny, with a great photo. On a more serious note,
The most recent Democratic travesty dates back to a precise moment in time: May 23, 2001. On that day, twelve Democratic senators voted to defund the Democratic agenda on which they had been elected. They supported the Bush scheme to award most of the Clinton surplus to wealthy Republicans. From that time forward, the game plan was to protect the Dirty Dozen from the embarrassment that would come with exposing the moral bankruptcy of Bush economics. The Democratic Party refused to advocate the Democratic economic platform and, in the process, lost credibility with its own voters. Now it has also lost many of the Quislings who supported the tax heist, which means that the party discarded principle in exchange for failure.Actually this is a different (and better) way of saying what I wrote in Mostly Zell. Daschle was hamstrung having to protect the Democratic Senate majority, with Zell maybe going to leave the party. To go forward from here, perhaps we need to ask some of these "Republicans Lite" to please leave the party. A good criteria for that might be the ones that voted for the Bush tax cut.
11/07/2002
The Donor Class
How do you get the Democrats to be something other than Republicans Lite, when politics depends on money?
Campaign consultants get a cut of the money a candidate spends on TV ads. So campaign consultants tell candidates it is vitally important to spend tons of cash on TV. So candidates need to raise tons of cash in a limited time period. So they need to appeal to people with the means to give $1000 contributions. Any way you cut it people who can freely give $1000 contributions are rich people. So the candidate spends his or her time associating with the rich - The Donor Class - appealing to them for money. So the candidate's viewpoint naturally amends itself to the concerns of the people the candidate spends time with and depends on.
While money is always important, campaigns USED TO have get-out-the-vote (GOTV) mechanisms in place. Poll watchers, block captains, precinct captains and volunteers - all geared toward getting out the vote. Several years ago the national Democrats largely abandoned local GOTV in favor of putting their resources behind TV ads.
Poll watching works - I know it does because I increased the Democratic turnout in my precinct by 20%. It wasn't a matter of great skill, mostly it was a phone call telling them where the polling place was, maybe offering a ride. (Increasing by 20% meant getting 6 more people to vote in a precinct where 30 Democrats had already voted, but increasing is increasaing and that is a good thing.) While unions contributed to a GOTV effort this time, it wasn't enough and was starting largely from scratch. The old way, the block captain knew everyone on the block and talked to them about why they should vote Democratic and then got them to the polls on election day. I was calling strangers, starting that afternoon.
We just had an election where more money than ever was spent on TV ads, with the lowest voter turnout ever. Maybe now you know where I'm going with this. Maybe Democrats DON'T need to put all that money into TV ads.
If we're going to rebuild a Democratic Party that isn't a Republican Party Lite, we will have to reduce the dependence on the Donor Class. Building a strong GOTV machine, precinct-by-precinct is the way to get the job done.
Campaign consultants get a cut of the money a candidate spends on TV ads. So campaign consultants tell candidates it is vitally important to spend tons of cash on TV. So candidates need to raise tons of cash in a limited time period. So they need to appeal to people with the means to give $1000 contributions. Any way you cut it people who can freely give $1000 contributions are rich people. So the candidate spends his or her time associating with the rich - The Donor Class - appealing to them for money. So the candidate's viewpoint naturally amends itself to the concerns of the people the candidate spends time with and depends on.
While money is always important, campaigns USED TO have get-out-the-vote (GOTV) mechanisms in place. Poll watchers, block captains, precinct captains and volunteers - all geared toward getting out the vote. Several years ago the national Democrats largely abandoned local GOTV in favor of putting their resources behind TV ads.
Poll watching works - I know it does because I increased the Democratic turnout in my precinct by 20%. It wasn't a matter of great skill, mostly it was a phone call telling them where the polling place was, maybe offering a ride. (Increasing by 20% meant getting 6 more people to vote in a precinct where 30 Democrats had already voted, but increasing is increasaing and that is a good thing.) While unions contributed to a GOTV effort this time, it wasn't enough and was starting largely from scratch. The old way, the block captain knew everyone on the block and talked to them about why they should vote Democratic and then got them to the polls on election day. I was calling strangers, starting that afternoon.
We just had an election where more money than ever was spent on TV ads, with the lowest voter turnout ever. Maybe now you know where I'm going with this. Maybe Democrats DON'T need to put all that money into TV ads.
If we're going to rebuild a Democratic Party that isn't a Republican Party Lite, we will have to reduce the dependence on the Donor Class. Building a strong GOTV machine, precinct-by-precinct is the way to get the job done.
Iraq and Election
Suppose the Democratic leadership had taken Bush's war vote demand and said, "It is inappropriate to bring this to use immediately before the election. We'll be glad to take this up after the election, but we are not going to bring this to the Senate floor now."
1) It places a focus on Bush's motives for bringing this to the Congress just before the election. One lesson we learned from VietNam is that the country must be united behind any military action we undertake. Nothing could be more divisive than introducing this war vote into the election campaign. Sensible leadership would do everything they could to AVOID the divisiveness of having the war debate occur during campaign season. But this was planned to occur DURING campaign season. Bush is a divider,not a uniter.
2) It changes the Iraq debate to a question of the immediacy of the threat, which then changes the debate to a question of the necessity of the action. If it isn't immediate - he's a month from getting a nuke, or something like that - then why not have inspectors in there instead of invading?
3) It places the Democrats on the side of "dealing with Iraq," but at an appropriate time.
But this didn't happen. The country is divided about 50/50 on whether to go to war, with most of those in favor erroneously believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 AND that they have nukes now, and many of those opposed convinced that the President has lied to the public and manipulated the election.
1) It places a focus on Bush's motives for bringing this to the Congress just before the election. One lesson we learned from VietNam is that the country must be united behind any military action we undertake. Nothing could be more divisive than introducing this war vote into the election campaign. Sensible leadership would do everything they could to AVOID the divisiveness of having the war debate occur during campaign season. But this was planned to occur DURING campaign season. Bush is a divider,not a uniter.
2) It changes the Iraq debate to a question of the immediacy of the threat, which then changes the debate to a question of the necessity of the action. If it isn't immediate - he's a month from getting a nuke, or something like that - then why not have inspectors in there instead of invading?
3) It places the Democrats on the side of "dealing with Iraq," but at an appropriate time.
But this didn't happen. The country is divided about 50/50 on whether to go to war, with most of those in favor erroneously believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 AND that they have nukes now, and many of those opposed convinced that the President has lied to the public and manipulated the election.
Rove's Current Scam
Karl Rove's current spin scam is that the Republicans have won the right to make major changes to the country just because they've got a couple more votes in the Congress than the Democrats have. This is an evenly divided country, which means there should be legislation right in the middle, not on the far right. Government is supposed to be about what's good for the country and what the people want, not what's good for the Party and what the Party wants. It's really early here - I'll write more later.
11/06/2002
More Worldcom Corruption
Get used to coincidental news stories like the following: (Really, read down to the punchline, I mean, the third headline.)
SEC Expands Charges Against WorldCom, "The government on Tuesday expanded its civil fraud charges against WorldCom and the company raised its estimate of inflated earnings to more than $9 billion in one of the most stunning accounting scandals of the past year."
WorldCom fraud reaches $9bn, "In a court filing in New York, the SEC said that WorldCom has admitted that it concealed $9bn in expenses, all of which was converted into false profits."
Also in the news today today, WorldCom Gets Veterans Affairs Deal, "WorldCom Inc., a recent target of labor and consumer groups seeking to bar it from government work, has won a contract to provide long-distance services for the Department of Veterans Affairs"
Remember when Bush came into office, and promptly changed the rules so that corporations convicted of breaking laws - including defrauding the government - could again get lucrative government contracts? Read about it here.
SEC Expands Charges Against WorldCom, "The government on Tuesday expanded its civil fraud charges against WorldCom and the company raised its estimate of inflated earnings to more than $9 billion in one of the most stunning accounting scandals of the past year."
WorldCom fraud reaches $9bn, "In a court filing in New York, the SEC said that WorldCom has admitted that it concealed $9bn in expenses, all of which was converted into false profits."
Also in the news today today, WorldCom Gets Veterans Affairs Deal, "WorldCom Inc., a recent target of labor and consumer groups seeking to bar it from government work, has won a contract to provide long-distance services for the Department of Veterans Affairs"
Remember when Bush came into office, and promptly changed the rules so that corporations convicted of breaking laws - including defrauding the government - could again get lucrative government contracts? Read about it here.
Mostly Zell
Today I've ranted about how the Democrats let the Republicans fight dirty, how the public doesn't get information to make informed choices, and how us bloggers need to read what we write and not be so optimistic that things will turn out. Now I'll try to write about what happened and what to do.
I blame Zell, and at the same time I thank him for sticking around until now and saving the country.
Daschle did what he had to do to lead the Senate. Keeping the majority in the Senate was literally saving the country. So Daschle had to make the sacrifices that had to be made to try to hold that majority, with Senator Zell Miller of Georgia ready to bolt at any time, and other Democrats running for the Senate who had voted for Bush's tax cuts. This is why the Democrats could not run against Bush's tax cuts. That's over now and I can't blame Daschle at all.
Now things are different. I think now would be a good time to politely ask Zell to leave the Democratic Party and confirm the Republicans as the Party of the Confederacy. And maybe a few others should think about leaving. The Democrats are the minority party now and do not have to try to hold Zell and those others in the party just to keep the majority. Goodbye, thanks for helping save the country, but it's time to rebuild the Demcoratic Party as the party of working people.
I blame Zell, and at the same time I thank him for sticking around until now and saving the country.
Daschle did what he had to do to lead the Senate. Keeping the majority in the Senate was literally saving the country. So Daschle had to make the sacrifices that had to be made to try to hold that majority, with Senator Zell Miller of Georgia ready to bolt at any time, and other Democrats running for the Senate who had voted for Bush's tax cuts. This is why the Democrats could not run against Bush's tax cuts. That's over now and I can't blame Daschle at all.
Now things are different. I think now would be a good time to politely ask Zell to leave the Democratic Party and confirm the Republicans as the Party of the Confederacy. And maybe a few others should think about leaving. The Democrats are the minority party now and do not have to try to hold Zell and those others in the party just to keep the majority. Goodbye, thanks for helping save the country, but it's time to rebuild the Demcoratic Party as the party of working people.
The Democrats
(Written this morning, not posted until now.)
The Democrats showed up at a hockey game with badminton rackets. The Republicans weren't there to play hockey, either - they brought machine guns.
Here's what I'm talking about. In Georgia, (as had been done with Bush vs McCain in the South Carolina primary), the Republicans ran a draft-dodger against a war hero and won by questioning the war-hero's patriotism. (Meanwhile, in Washington, the Republicans were quietly cutting Veterans' benefits and health care.) They pulled it off by, as Joe Conason put it, fomenting an atmosphere of war to scare the shit out of the public and silence opposing voices. Was that good for the country? WHO CARES? The Republicans didn't care, and the Democrats didn't make it an issue.
The Democrats don't get it. The Republican Party has been completely taken over by the far-far-right, and it is a new game. It isn't about policy. It isn't about what is good for the country. The Republican approach is, "What is it that we need to get the public to believe in order to get them to vote for us, how do we get them to believe it, and how do we keep them believing it?"
Look at it this way, if focus groups showed that a certain key group of South Dakota Democrats would not vote for Tom Daschle if they learned that he had secretly received a medal from the King of Siam, there would be a story on the Drudge Report that he had received a medal from the King of Siam, and it would be repeated in the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh would pick it up, and soon every media outlet in the country would be talking about it.
The story would have no basis in reality whatsoever – and that would not matter. Remember the story about Clinton selling Arlington National Cemetery plots? The public thinks there were "Clinton Scandals," even though every single charge was proven false! That's how it works. You don't fight this kind of accusation by saying "No, I didn’t." You can't fight this sort of thing that way. You fight it by exposing the operation so the public sees what is going on underneath the phony stories.
The Democrats need to get in the game.
The Democrats showed up at a hockey game with badminton rackets. The Republicans weren't there to play hockey, either - they brought machine guns.
Here's what I'm talking about. In Georgia, (as had been done with Bush vs McCain in the South Carolina primary), the Republicans ran a draft-dodger against a war hero and won by questioning the war-hero's patriotism. (Meanwhile, in Washington, the Republicans were quietly cutting Veterans' benefits and health care.) They pulled it off by, as Joe Conason put it, fomenting an atmosphere of war to scare the shit out of the public and silence opposing voices. Was that good for the country? WHO CARES? The Republicans didn't care, and the Democrats didn't make it an issue.
The Democrats don't get it. The Republican Party has been completely taken over by the far-far-right, and it is a new game. It isn't about policy. It isn't about what is good for the country. The Republican approach is, "What is it that we need to get the public to believe in order to get them to vote for us, how do we get them to believe it, and how do we keep them believing it?"
Look at it this way, if focus groups showed that a certain key group of South Dakota Democrats would not vote for Tom Daschle if they learned that he had secretly received a medal from the King of Siam, there would be a story on the Drudge Report that he had received a medal from the King of Siam, and it would be repeated in the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh would pick it up, and soon every media outlet in the country would be talking about it.
The story would have no basis in reality whatsoever – and that would not matter. Remember the story about Clinton selling Arlington National Cemetery plots? The public thinks there were "Clinton Scandals," even though every single charge was proven false! That's how it works. You don't fight this kind of accusation by saying "No, I didn’t." You can't fight this sort of thing that way. You fight it by exposing the operation so the public sees what is going on underneath the phony stories.
The Democrats need to get in the game.
It's the Information Sources, Stupid
Those of us who get our information over the internet have lost sight of the current state of America. WE are informed. They are not. WE get information. We are referred to articles from British or Indonesian or Israeli papers. They get fed stuff by those same news sources that we spend our time complaining about.
We are reading The Daily Howler. They're reading the blatantly biased stuff that The Daily Howler laughs at!
We mustn't forget that polls show that most people believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Iraq has nuclear weapons, etc. The public believes that this economy is Clinton's fault. The public believes that tax cuts for the rich "create jobs" and that the "Death Tax" will cost their kids. WE know these are false, they don't. How could they know? The aren't reading Seeing the Forest. They aren't reading Eschaton.
The stuff we are writing about is for real. This isn't just a bunch of people with computers fooling themselves. By and large the bloggers GET IT.
The Republicans get it, too. That's why they have made such an effort to bring the sources of information under their influence. The question is what to do about it.
We are reading The Daily Howler. They're reading the blatantly biased stuff that The Daily Howler laughs at!
We mustn't forget that polls show that most people believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Iraq has nuclear weapons, etc. The public believes that this economy is Clinton's fault. The public believes that tax cuts for the rich "create jobs" and that the "Death Tax" will cost their kids. WE know these are false, they don't. How could they know? The aren't reading Seeing the Forest. They aren't reading Eschaton.
The stuff we are writing about is for real. This isn't just a bunch of people with computers fooling themselves. By and large the bloggers GET IT.
The Republicans get it, too. That's why they have made such an effort to bring the sources of information under their influence. The question is what to do about it.
11/05/2002
Bitter Blogger
How much of what the liberal political bloggers write is about how manipulative is was to launch the Iraq war debate just before the election? How much of what we write is about how the press is totally slanted? How much of what we write is about how the timidity of the National Democrats drives people away from supporting them? How much of what we write is about how the information that the public receives is one-sided? How much of what we write is about the influence of money? How much of what we write is about the way that illogical emotional propaganda wins people over against their own interests? How much of what we write is about how the Republicans appeal to people through trickery and bribes? How much of what we write is about Republican voter suppression and intimidation in minority areas - not to mention purging voter roles?
How much of what we wrote about the election was hopeful denial of the very realities we write about? Considering what we write, what did we fucking expect?
How much of what we wrote about the election was hopeful denial of the very realities we write about? Considering what we write, what did we fucking expect?
Poll Watching
I'm taking a short break from election activities. This morning I was calling voters, using lists prepared by the Democrats. This afternoon I've been working at "poll watching."
THIS is how you win elections. I am assigned to a polling place. I have a list of registered Democrats from the precincts that vote at this polling place. Every few hours the polling place posts a list of people who have voted. (Actually they post the whole list of voters, and the people who have voted are crossed out.) I take that list, and cross out anyone that has voted who is also on my list of Democrats. Then I start trying to reach the ones who have not voted. Later in the day this will likely turn into a frenzy, and if there is time I'll be calling, maybe looking for people, and offering rides to the polls. My job is to get the rest of the people to vote.
I hope the Democrats are doing this everywhere, precinct by precinct. Here they are organized enough to be doing this, and we are looking for a Democratic "sweep" of every statewide office.
They way it used to work is every precinct had a "captain." That person lived in the precinct, walked from door to door through the year, got to know everyone and how they would vote, talked to anyone who could be persuaded and most important rounded them all up and got them to vote on election day. We need to bring that system back.
THIS is how you win elections. I am assigned to a polling place. I have a list of registered Democrats from the precincts that vote at this polling place. Every few hours the polling place posts a list of people who have voted. (Actually they post the whole list of voters, and the people who have voted are crossed out.) I take that list, and cross out anyone that has voted who is also on my list of Democrats. Then I start trying to reach the ones who have not voted. Later in the day this will likely turn into a frenzy, and if there is time I'll be calling, maybe looking for people, and offering rides to the polls. My job is to get the rest of the people to vote.
I hope the Democrats are doing this everywhere, precinct by precinct. Here they are organized enough to be doing this, and we are looking for a Democratic "sweep" of every statewide office.
They way it used to work is every precinct had a "captain." That person lived in the precinct, walked from door to door through the year, got to know everyone and how they would vote, talked to anyone who could be persuaded and most important rounded them all up and got them to vote on election day. We need to bring that system back.
Going Out to Help
I'm leaving now, to go help with Get Out The Vote efforts.
I hope I'll be at a victory party late into the night. See you tomorrow.
You shouldn't be reading this because you should also be out helping.
I hope I'll be at a victory party late into the night. See you tomorrow.
You shouldn't be reading this because you should also be out helping.
The Oil
Carve-up of oil riches begins,
The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.
Left Dumbs Down
Nicholas Kristoff has a column in today's NY Times, The Left Dumbs Down, in which he complains about "The Left" (it's actually a few people on the left) resorting to name-calling and conspiracy theories.
And what about people who AREN'T engaging in this stuff? They're singled out for extra criticism,
He says it sounds like Rush Limbaugh, that the White House team that executed Vince Foster must have struck again, and that this is a good day to reflect on this incivility.
OK, I will.
It worked. They won. And where were people like Kristoff in the Clinton years, when the Republicans were going nuts with conspiracies and accusations and insults and ridicule and incivility (all planned by polls, and focus group tested)? Criticizing Clinton.
And what about people who AREN'T engaging in this stuff? They're singled out for extra criticism,
It's true that Democratic politicians like Tom Daschle haven't joined the conspiratorial hysteria, but that's because they're ducking controversial issues and are frightened of offending centrists. Al Gore's speech last month on the economy blasted the administration without offering a single specific suggestion of what should be done.So the people who AREN'T engaging in incivility are only not doing so because they are cowards!
He says it sounds like Rush Limbaugh, that the White House team that executed Vince Foster must have struck again, and that this is a good day to reflect on this incivility.
OK, I will.
It worked. They won. And where were people like Kristoff in the Clinton years, when the Republicans were going nuts with conspiracies and accusations and insults and ridicule and incivility (all planned by polls, and focus group tested)? Criticizing Clinton.
11/04/2002
Nasty in Espanol
I've been getting this really nasty campaign e-mail, in Spanish. Anyone else getting it? I'll bet it is being masively spammed.
White people can translate this at Bablefish. Just paste this URL where it says Translate a Web Page: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ (And remember to choose Spanish to English.)
Muy queridos familiares y amigos:... and ...
Tengo urgentes noticias sobre las posiciones del partido demócrata sobre el aborto y la homosexualidad. Debido a que nuestra fe, nuestra familia y nuestros hijos son tan importantes, creo que es de vital importancia que ustedes estén en conocimiento de esto antes de que vayan a votar. el próximo Martes 5.de Noviembre.
CON RESPECTO AL ABORTO
Sabia usted que los demócratas en el Senado de Estados Unidos han votado vez tras vez a favor de mantener legal el aborto aun hasta el tercer trimestre de embarazo! Este cruel procedimiento implica que un bebé que esta por nacer, lo voltean para que salgan primero los pies y luego, antes de sacarle la cabecita, el medico le corta el cuello con un cuchillo punzante, le abre un hoyo al cerebro y le succiona los sesos al bebé. Todo esto lo hacen estos médicos sin anestesia. Debido a los Demócratas, esta practica de aborto, o mejor dicho, infanticidio, es legal hoy día hasta los 9 meses de embarazo! Si señores, este criminal proceso es 100% legal y el partido demócrata quiere que permanezca legal. Los Republicanos han tratado de prohibir el “aborto de nacimiento parcial”, (como se llama oficialmente), por casi 10 años y los Demócratas han parado los esfuerzos de los Republicanos.
ADOPCIONES DE NINOS POR HOMOSEXUALESIt goes on...
Como si el matrimonio entre homosexuales no fuese lo suficientemente depravado, casi todos los Demócratas apoyan la adopción de niños por
homosexuales aun cuando padres de familia normales, hombre y mujer, esten listos y dispuestos para adoptar al mismo niño. Si los Demócratas
continúan bloqueando las nominaciones de los nombramientos judiciales del Presidente Bush, incluyendo el caso de Miguel Estrada a la segunda Corte mas alta del país, y continúan ganando mas puestos estatales, las adopciones entre homosexuales y cuidado de niños por los sodomitas, se volverá algo generalizado y los niños sufrirán eternamente la implementación de estas medidas degeneradas.
White people can translate this at Bablefish. Just paste this URL where it says Translate a Web Page: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ (And remember to choose Spanish to English.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)