Cover the Uninsured Week, May 1-7

Personally, I think it ought to last more than a week, but it's a start. Certainly nothing we can count on Congress & the Shrub admin to do without dire pressure from voters.

More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance, and like moi, and I'm sure, many of you, no access to ongoing, primary medical or dental care of any kind.


What you can do to take action:

• write elected officials; sample letters, send online e-letters, here.
• write a letter to the editor
• volunteer
• and see the other suggestions, here.
  

On the Eve of the Release of the Flight 93 Film and the Squandering of Second Chances

I'm out in the boonies so I know I won't be trekking into the city to see the new film United 93. And as such, I can obviously have no opinion one way or the other until/unless I do see it (which to be honest, I'm just not inclined to do at this point -- call it lack of psychological readiness in addition to lack of proximity).

However, for the past couple of days I have been thinking about this: those people now occupying / living / working in the two institutions that were to have been the final target of that flight (apparently the plane was supposed to crash into either the White House or the Capitol Building).

I don't have the thoughts and words fully formed, rather they flow more as a stream of consciousness banging from within demanding to get out, so I will honor that unformed energy for now -- it simply is what it is. And the thoughts, feelings include this, an 'internal' conversation of sorts:

You wouldn't much know by their actions or words during the last four plus years that any of the people in those 'hallowed' institutions have any drizzle or drop of heightened consciousness, enlightenment or awareness much less a renewed sense of moral obligation, would you?

Do you detect even the tiniest sense that they comprehend / apprehend even slightly that their own lives were saved by the passengers of Flight 93? That they were given that true second chance by those brave souls?

Precious, unfathomable gifts from extraordinary strangers (regular, ordinary people by all accounts) who sacrificed their own lives sooner rather than waiting to be devoured in another fiery crash into another icon of this country (whichever one it would have been) -- another crash that might have burned and devoured thousands more, thus saving the lives of those 'leaders' and those thousands more.

No, I don't think you can tell (by their words, deeds, actions) that the folks roaming the halls of power whose lives were intentionally spared by the passengers of United 93 have reflected upon that little tidbit, can you? At least I sure can't.

And having failed to reflect, having failed to consider the rare second chance for life they received from those strangers, they have squandered that historic opportunity for seriously, truly important, meaningful deeds and actions -- and thus have squandered both individual and collective (and authentic) redemption.

Indeed, they squandered and they continue to squander every opportunity they might have used for truly honoring the humanity of the people who saved them (and us) from a second horrifying, heart- and mind-numbing tragedy on 9-11.

These so-called 'leaders' and power-holders -- these influencers of men and kings who jet off to golf in Ireland, who leak secrets and launch character assaults on dissenters, who stuff their pockets and purses and wallets with buy-offs and trade-offs and bribes, whose lies and manipulations resulted in war and several other thousand (unnecessary, wasted) deaths, cripplings, blindings, maimings -- these spared 'leaders' have diddled it all away while wallowing in their own petty ambitions. And as such have further betrayed the grave duties they originally undertook.

I know whose lives I'd sorely be tempted to offer in trade were that option available.

But wait -- they have gone much farther by betraying an even graver, more sacred duty bestowed upon them by their real-life human saviours -- people who gave them that real, concrete, actual rare second chance to live -- a gift from strangers, truly heroic human beings who cared more about others (enough to sacrifice their own lives on that historic day, in that historic way).

These leaders we continue to tolerate have failed in the deepest, most disturbing ways possible -- in ways that only the most sociopathic, narcissistic, damaged or psychopathic fail -- by not receiving and honoring the gift from the ultimate sacrifice of others: to make more of their lives, to better serve the world, their families and their communities.

FWIW.


WP article here, review here; NYT review here; and LATimes review here (by the excellent, always thought-provoking, highly conscious, Kenneth Turan).

Bush to the people: "I understand your Gas Pain"

Frist: "Let them get tune-ups."

The President and the Politicians are 'Shocked! Shocked!' that their oil company brethren (aka big-money contributors and friends of Dick 'shoot-em-up' Cheney) are raking in historic windfall profits.

And they're going to demand an investigation right away, while new Chief of Staff Josh Bolten makes sure the Prez 'brags' about all his and the repugnacons' great accomplishments (Karl Rove's smudgy, smeary fingerprints anyone?).

As David Gergen pointed out with regard to the new Chief of Staff's Five-(talking)-Point Plan to rescue the White House: "Pure Cynicism" -- spin with no substance, no addressing fundamental issues/problems which concern and affect regular people: war, economy, healthcare, immigration, border security, Iran, Iraq ...

In his recent op-ed piece in the NY Times, he wrote:

The timing and nature of the shake-up signals that Mr. Bush's primary interest is in better management and marketing.

(in all fairness, in the interview I saw, Gergen also stated he couldn't/didn't believe this was actually Bolten's plan because it is so cynical -- like I said: tell-tale signs of Rove still being Bush's brain).

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose


(the more things change, the more they stay the same)

Time Magazine article about the so-called five-point rescue (PR/spin) plan here. Gergen's NYTimes op-ed, here.

NOTE: just in case anyone cares, I purposefully did NOT use feel in the entry title/headline because it would further devalue the concept of empathy, understanding, concern and the true meaning of feel (since the right/the shrub admin have evinced little if any actual empathy/concern/feelings for or toward actual regular non-wealthy human beings) -- all the while attempting to underscore the irony of the intellectual concept of understand used within the context of or in juxtaposition to the debacle that is President George W. Bush.

Impact, effects of the Democratic 'Leaders' : UGH. Bleh. Yada yada yada + New: Russert Rating

Listening (or trying to listen) to Teddy K. on Meet the Press. Good lord. He's even more of a double-talking blowhard than ever. He's so 'yesterday' -- just like the majority of the Dems.

Once more, another round of upcoming elections --- it's theirs to lose -- and they seem intent on doing exactly that (again). I'm just so disgusted with them -- talk about not having or getting the 'vision thing' .... except, wait, coming to life a tad bit maybe!!! TK finally just got a little fire in the belly talking about the incompetence and cronyism of the Shrub admin and the obscene wealth/profits of corporations and CEOs (like Exxon and Lee Raymond's recent $400 million dollar jewel encrusted platinum parachute). Hmmm, wonder how many doctor's visits, healthcare, housing needs that money could take care of?

Otherwise, Tim & Teddy are one big snooze and the first half of the show for today's Russert Rating receives an 'especially lame' on the lame, lamer, lamest continuum.

Don't know if I can stomach the second half -- or simply manage to stay awake.

........ Zzzzzzzz ........

Footnotes: Here's another (mixed-picture) perspective from WaPo's Ruth Marcus:

Tyrannosaurus Ted?

Kennedy is unaccustomed to operating in a world in which Republicans control the White House, House and Senate and hasn't adjusted his tactics accordingly. ...

what is the point, really, of being in Congress if you're not there to at least try to get something done? If you think it's too dangerous to go to conference because you're frightened of the results, then what, exactly, have you been elected to do? Between the antics of the leaders on both sides -- You're wrong. No, you are. Well, you started it. -- and the prospect of crafting a legislative compromise, put me down in Kennedy's column.

And here's E.J. Dionne's WaPo column about the Dems' recent get-together:

The Left's Big Ideas

Democratic Party leaders met over the weekend in New Orleans, gleefully criticized President Bush's stewardship and issued a "vision" statement that most pundits and reporters saw as less than visionary and not terribly specific.

Perfectly true, which underscores a central fact of American politics: "New ideas," "bold visions," "detailed solutions" and "courageous policies" almost never originate with politicians, especially politicians in the middle of election campaigns. Political consultants, with a few honorable exceptions, don't do "vision" either.

...None of this means a new liberalism will soon reign triumphant. It does mean that after a long period of reacting to conservative initiatives, progressives sense that conservative failures have created a vacuum that needs to be filled. The marketplace of ideas is not always efficient, but it eventually responds to felt needs.

That is what's happening, even if some of the ideas are still less than completely baked, as the political philosopher Dustin Hoffman might put it -- and even if it will take a long time for any of the ideas to penetrate Democratic National Committee meetings. It has always been thus. (emphasis mine)

Michelle Malkin's Phone Number: Turn about's fair play

As my trig teacher (a brilliant man from Columbia U.) used to say:

"Turn about's fair play!"

I found some sites that claim to have Michelle Malkin's phone number:

• Defeatists


• OnePeoplesProject

• A cache of a blogger.com search seems to show an address and phone number in an earlier 4/19 post at ThoseBastards (see below for link).

• Imageshack posting.
  

Here's some explication:

• Malkin crosses the line in Santa Cruz


• Michelle Malkin: Worst Person in the World


• UCSC Students Against War: Death Threats and Harrassment


• SAW Forces Military Out

• Hawkin' Malkin's Bastards of the Blogs card (in pdf form), which reminds the reader that she wrote a book justifying and rationalizing the internment (rounding up and putting in American concentration camps) of Japanese-American citizens during one of our country's previous cycles of paranoid anti-immigrant hysteria and fervor.
  

Given all that, I think Crooks&Liars' caveat is more than reasonable: "If you contact her please don't stoop to the levels that her readers are."

Under re-construction: blog re-design in progress

Time for some changes, yah.

It's still the Economy, Estupido

Suggested read for the day:

Employers and political conservatives who have fought against increasing the minimum wage, guaranteeing pensions and providing worker healthcare should not be trusted when, as a last resort, they use the language of Statue of Liberty poet Emma Lazarus and call on Congress to pass an immigration bill that would welcome the world's "huddled masses." It is when they speak like Vicente Fox that these businessmen and politicians are disclosing their real motives.

Before we talk about opening up the country to more immigration, we need to talk about justice for those with centuries-old roots in the United States who are still doing badly. Then, and only then, can we discuss bringing newcomers to this nation and not be guilty of hypocrisy.

That is from a column by Nicoluas Mills in the LATimes today, wherein the professor also writes:

If you own a factory or a farm and need unskilled labor, hire Mexican immigrants. You won't have to worry about healthcare, retirement or paying minimum wage. They'll live in dormitories or cars, and when you have no use for them, they'll move on.

That's the future of the low-skilled, evermore poorly educated American worker if we continue on the path set by corporate and elected leaders while Americans continue to buy the myths of the so-called 'free market'. In fact, wages will continue to go down for all except a few as the labor force expands while opportunities for well-paying, benefits-providing jobs contract (and are sent overseas).

The column is "The Black and Brown Job Picture" -- which really also includes the impoverished, working class, working/not-working poor of any cultural group, of which in absolute numbers whites comprise the highest numbers in this country. As usual, it's really all about the money (and the power that goes with having it).

I loved hearing Rabbi Michael Lerner discuss the Biblical imperative to redistribute wealth every 50 years on Meet the Press last Sunday -- but you won't hear that concept discussed among the compassionate conservative Shrub/gun-slinging Cheney regime or the free-market-loving decision-makers and ever-wealthier power holders, much less the christian right, who are wrong about so much and proud of it, too. They would rather fear-monger and fund-raise over the 'homosexual threat' to marriage, etc than follow Jesus' imperatives to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the least among us ... mentioned exponentially more frequently in his teachings than either abortion or homosexuality ... in fact, if I recall my Bible history, Jesus never mentioned either one of those topics according to the people who wrote about him in what is now called the New Testament.

As a point of reference: in 1981, federal law set the minimum wage to $3.35 (from $3.10 in 1980). Today, in the year 2006, it is $5.15.

I don't hear the fear-based right or their favored political candidates (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, whatchamacallit Romney from Utah, now Mass.) and all their hypocritical greedy lawbreaking figureheads talking about that little fact at all, not ever. I don't hear very many dems talking about it either for that matter -- worse yet, they're doing nothing, have done nothing. And shame on voting-age Americans for allowing that to happen. We get the government / leaders we deserve? We've squandered so much for so long -- it's not just money/capital -- think of the wasted, squandered, dismissed human lives, human potential, human capacity, imagination, creativity, the possibility for so much more.

Where's the MacArthur Plan or the Manhattan Project for America? For taking care of our own backyard as a top priority while simultaneously helping others elsewhere in the world improve themselves? (Not talking about continuing to prop up demagogues and dictators; that despicable history continues to contribute to our present woes.) Where indeed?

Being an Outspoken Critic: okay for the right, not for those who criticize it = HYPOCRISY

Left this in response to a posting by Dr. Reich's post "A Dangerous Precedent" on the whole 'retired generals speaking out' criticizing Rummy uproar:

Hi Dr. Reich -- so glad you're here:

Your points are well-taken -- and consistent.

What I find galling (and once again hypocritical to the max) are the right wingers who complain NOW, but have been all too happy to have not only retired military but also ACTIVE duty military actively embroiled in political endorsements, activities, fundraising, etc for decades -- as long as it benefits the republicans and the right. Example: Schwartzkopf addressing the repub nat'l convention in the early 90s.

They do the same thing with religion.

Also, if retired generals/military shouldn't be speaking out against Rummy (therefore Bush) now, why is it okay for active and retired to be speaking out now in his behalf as a direct response to those who have been criticizing the incompetent mishandling of the war, etc? Why is that okay with the right?

Again, it's because as long as it benefits their outlook, beliefs, perspective, power, speaking out for Rumsfeld is okay, but if it doesn't, it's 'unseemly', disloyal, insubordinate (which of course it certainly can't be if they are no longer active duty).

So again, although you have credibility on this issue, this administration does not (nor do those who are now involving themselves in the PR campaign to criticize those who are critical of Bush/Rumsfeld.

Much as they try, they can't continue to have it both ways (although they will continue to try and there are plenty of Americans who will happily join them in their twisted rationalizations and blatant hypocrisy).

Cheers!!!

Buzzzed

In the final act, it is Bush who is the most responsible as he is the 'decider in chief.'

You can read Dr. Reich's posting here.

The Editorial Washington Post SHOULD Have Published

Excerpt this:

April 16, 2006
NYT Editorial
A Bad Leak

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

.... this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

... the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.

This fits the pattern of Mr. Bush's original sales pitch on the Iraq war -- hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it. ... (emphases mine)

Shrub & the Repubs aren't the only ones who can be disingenuous (feckless dems aside) -- the Editorial side of the Washington Post has been (deservedly) taken to task over "A Good Leak" -- a recent editorial taking Bush's side that he was 'declassifying' not 'cherry-picking and selectively leaking' classified information for purely manipulative political purposes.

So, today the New York Times shows (excerpt above) it will belly up to the bar and proffer another, more sober interpretation instead of all the winking, finger-crossing and back-tracking exemplified by the WaPo and this incompetent, lie-filled administration.

On a related note, I find it extremely interesting (and telling) that the WP sneakily 'hid' their Good Leak editorial inside the 'print edition' and did not trumpet it among the editorials of the online version on April 9. I really had to do some determined hunting to find the thing. Just try searching for the term 'Good Leak' it in the main page search box if you don't believe me.

NYT editorial here, WaPo here.

The Relevance & Relativity of Context

Repression, authoritarianism, patriarchy, domination, control of others -- it all exists along a continuum. Excerpt from "How to Lose Your Job at a Saudi Newspaper" by Fawaz Turki:

...What Arabs have yet to learn, in addition to that, is that newspapers are not published to advance the political preferences of proprietors, or the commentary of subservient analysts who turn a blind eye to the abuse of power by political leaders running their failed states. [me: oh really? Wonder if most of the ones here know that.]

Democracy may be a political system, but it is also a social ethos. How responsive can a country be to such an ethos when its people have, for generations, existed with an ethic of fear -- fear of originality, fear of innovation, fear of spontaneity, fear of life itself -- and have had instilled in them the need to accept orthodoxy, dependence and submission? [ready for American Theocracy anyone?]

The Arab world today, sadly, remains a collection of disparate entities ruled for the most part by authoritarian regimes that rely on coercion, violence and terror to rule, and that demand from their citizens submission, obedience and conformity. And that includes those citizens who call themselves "journalists," to whom, by now, responsibility to truth and logic has become irrelevant.

Well President Shrub, are we gonna invade Saudi Arabia for not being a gun-slinging, macho casually swaggering democracy?

I'm in no way belittling Mr. Turki -- just pointing out that there's plenty of room for improvement here at home -- recall all the sundry and sordid ways the USA has over the years endorsed, assisted, propped up, funded the demagogues, dictators and murderers of similar regimes. Iraq and Saddam Hussein, for instance.

And let's not forget that workers in any job or profession here in the 'land of the free (and cheap labor)' have no more rights (unless in a union) than what Mr. Turki experienced.

Mr. Turki's must-read first-hand account here at the WaPo.

American Taliban

Burkas: the new fashion rage in the Red States of America.

Order Red Burka shirts and posters -- help support Tennessee Guerilla Women and their great blog!

About Rep. McKinney ... our reactions are instructive

Shark Fu at Angry Black Bitch and Erin Aubry Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times (and formerly the LA Weekly) both said it better than I ever could.

Ms. Kaplan's column is entitled "Going ghetto: Last week, Cynthia McKinney's big hair collided with racism that never dies."

Shark Fu's blog entry is "Uppity..." I dare you to read them.

Update: 4/16/06

Left my own little mini-post at Shark Fu's blog, so will share here too:

Until there is innoculation for the virulent virus of racism (sexism, homophobia, theocratic intolerance ... and other forms of bigotry), I regret to say that so many (okay most, not all, just a whole damned LOTS) of my brother & sister white folks continue to have few insights into the irrational, emotional, hate-filled, punitive, over-the-top reactions and the 'law & order must be maintained at all costs...(except when we're the perpetrators)" rationalizations which erupted over Rep. McKinney's not-exactly-brilliant, unfortunate actions -- gee though in the context of what elected officials have been doing forever -- forget the recent lawbreaking of the mega-million-bucks Abramoff - Delay - Cheney/Halliburton/botched Iraq kind...

Focusing on Rep. McKinney (much to the glee of the repugs) sure offered a convenient distraction from far more consequential misbehaviors among the electorati and power holders (remember Enron, Kenny "pro-Bush" Lay, Tom 'bug-killer' DeLay, Scooter 'just-following-orders' Libby, Leaker in Chief 'just following Cheney's orders' Bush-boy ? ... the list goes on and on and on ...)

So talk about a failure to put things in context or the proverbial 'mountain out of a molehill' emotional outbursts... I believe it tells us much more about the state of (whites created it, we should own it) racism in our less than ideal republic.

Sigh...I believe the expression is: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. I don't know of any community that doesn't have work to do on their 'issues' -- but what's that other saying: with great power comes great responsibility -- and who has the most power in our society/nation/predominant culture?

I say, "more power to the people" and the sooner the better while we're at it. And since my responsibility to social/political/economic etc justice necessarily involves dealing with the challenge of challenging my own community first and foremost (never-ending work, I might add)....

I remain yours in (a weary and 'still I rise' determined) solidarity,

Buzzzed

¿ ?

What's on your mind? Feel free to share / suggest / rant / reproach / enlighten ....

Great News: Robert B. Reich joins the blogosphere!!!

And his timing couldn't be better. We're seeing the Shrub admin work overtime to deflect attention from the continuing debacles in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan.., the CIA/National Security Leaks, corruption flowing from every office and orifice -- all while they tout their 'booming' economy: 200,000+ jobs recently added, 4.7% unemployment, yada yada.

One of the things I most look forward to are the insights Dr. Reich (one of my intellectual and political heroes!) can provide about the untold, unreported (gee-thanks MSM) details that accompany those 'cherry-picked' and 'selective' stats. To wit:

• most are low-paying, low- or no-benefits jobs in the service sector (McDonald's anyone?)
• the national minimum wage has not been raised in more than nine years! ($5.15/hr -- it's not the jobs Americans won't do, it's the slave wages and no health-care they won't humiliate themselves/ourselves for!)
  
• the low unemployment rate/figures don't account for people working as the 'under-employed' or the folks working two or three part-time jobs to cobble together a barely-scraping-by living and especially don't account for the folks who have run out of benefits and who have simply given up and dropped off the unemployment rolls ...
• the rich become the ultra rich, the ultra rich the super rich, super rich become the mega rich ... and so on and so forth. Meanwhile the poor and middle class/working class become not only poorer, but less equipped with any kind of safety nets, less able to withstand one single major health or personal tragedy.
  

I'm sure there's much more and I for one look forward to hearing more about those areas of expertise from Dr. Reich, as well as his insights about the inner workings of DC and the political insiders.

For instance:

When friends in Washington talk about the Democratic nominee for 2008 they invariably lower their voices, as if they're frightened of being heard, and say Hillary has the nomination locked up but will surely lose the general election. Then they get a "what the hell can I do about it?" look on their faces, hold their palms up, and change the subject. Hillary is one of the smartest people I know and she'd make a better president than her husband. But I worry that no one around her is willing to tell her the truth....

Wikipedia entry here. His new blog is here. Go on over and give him a "Hey!" Recent books include:

• Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America
• I'll Be Short: Essentials for a Decent Working Society
  

Special thanks to his son, Sam Reich, for letting me know that his brilliant dad has arrived to add much-needed, valuable, important experience, knowledge, wisdom and analysis to the dialogue.

Florida: Land of the Homophobes, Homophobic Bigots, Bigoted Homophobes

NOW on PBS tonight: Florida's ban on gay people adopting hard to place, abused, abandoned, betrayed, unloved foster children (among all the other discriminatory, hate-mongering perpetuated not just by ignorant individuals, but institutionalized by the state).

Infuriating. Shortsighted. These state legislators would rather children be raised in the state, shunted around, experience instability and unpredictability than let queers provide a loving, stable, sheltered family settings with predictable, growthful, steady situations.

Another big reason Florida Sucks! But David Brancaccio and PBS ROCK! I used to listen to David all the time on Marketplace on NPR (KCRW, KPCC) when I was in CA. If Bill Moyers had to leave, David was a perfect choice to leave in charge of NOW. We need more Davids and Bills instead of the spitballs and hairballs in MSM -- if only!

Cockle Doodle Doo!

Tip o'hat to FiredogLake re: this Jeff Parker cartoon.

DeLay is OUTA HERE! Woo Hoo!

Tom 'bug-catcher' DeLay stepping down in May -- he doesn't want the election to be a referendum about him -- oh sure, he's doing it all for others, especially for Jesus.

So when is the next shoe dropping? What charges are going to be filed now that two close aides and Abramoff are cooperating with the feds? Or will there be a cover up?

Meanwhile he can work and enrich himself and his family directly as a lobbyist instead of indirectly and illegally.

More will be revealed. NYT clip here, WaPo here. I like Uncorrelated.com's title here.

Religion, Politics, Abortion, Media: an Alternative Approach

I've personally never known a woman who undertook abortion lightly or without great trepidation. Although I've never had one, I have known and loved many who have, beginning in college -- a friend who at the time was (also) a very religious, southern baptist fundamentalist, church-going good girl from a similarly religious 'good' middle to upper middle class family. I was the working class 'good girl' from the same denomination who drove her to and from the clinic 90 miles away in a different state and helped her into her bed for the healing many long hours after it was all over. We never spoke of it again.

I've certainly never known any man who has been pregnant, much less had an abortion -- only a few have seemed to have a grasp of just how difficult a decision it really can be -- although to be fair, I've heard a few (very few) 'pro-choice' women who have spoken of it with no clue and no more concept of the challenges than having a hang-nail removed. This is not a characteristic of the pro-choice movement I find very endearing or appealing or empathic.

And, while very much a believer that children should be wanted, not the consequence of desperation or force or no - remaining - alternatives, I don't think the decision to have an abortion should be treated lightly or flippantly -- although the actions which result in abortion are sometimes undertaken far too lightly as well as in complex moments of weakness, desire, human frailty, irrationality, magical thinking and love -- and intentional conscious choice.

In my life, I've known only one man who grew to a place where he simply would not have sexual intercourse with a woman with whom he did not want to create, raise and share the responsbilities together of a child. Wow. Is that ultra radical, deeply respectful of women, highly disciplined and cosmically spiritual, or what? One in a gazillion, definitely. He was a very cool, deeply spiritual guy, once married to my ex-lover and we became friends for a time while we were all still in lower SoCal.

Anyway, all that to share this from the NYTimes "The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too" by Neela Banerjee:

The Interfaith Prayer Breakfast has been part of Planned Parenthood's annual convention for four years. Most ministers and rabbis at the breakfast have known the group far longer.

Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, drew clergy members in the early 20th century by relating the suffering of women who endured successive pregnancies that ravaged their health and sought illegal abortions in their desperation, said the Rev. Thomas R. Davis of the United Church of Christ, in his book "Sacred Work, Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances."

A parishioner (from a Presbyterian church in Houston whose minister, Rev. W. Stewart MacColl, worked with Planned Parenthood to start a family planning center) expressed concern about the anti-choice protesters they encountered:

"...you don't drive to church with a 4-year-old in the back seat of your car and have to try to explain to him when a woman holds up a picture of a dead baby and screams through the window, 'Your church believes in killing babies.' "

Mr. MacColl said of the abortion protester: "She would, I suspect, count herself a lover of life, a lover of the unborn, a lover of God. And yet she spoke in harshness, hatred and frightened a little child."

Mr. MacColl quoted the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: " 'Sometimes the worst evil is done by good people who do not know that they are not good.' "

And a powerfully contextualized, re-imagined, re-purposed bible quote by the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary:

"Human existence as a materialistic quest for power and dominance, a crass manipulation of fear and intolerance for political gain, drives us apart both from one another and from God," she said. "For what does it profit you to gain the whole world and lose your soul?"

Lots of pious folks out there endeavoring to gain the whole world and fashion it in their image. Entire NYT article here.


I'm just guessing, but I would have to conclude that this article is in DIRECT response to very recent criticism (and a study published in March 2006) of the NYT regarding its paucity of coverage of abortion, pro-choice political actions, reproductive rights, women's rights and overall family planning articles, particularly by women reporters and from a perspective that acts as a counterpoint to its overwhelming negative coverage of those topics reported overwhelmingly by men with an obvious anti-choice tilt (my sense is that is true during the past 10 or more years -- since the rise of the radical religious right and the silence of progressive believers and churches of faith), although this study covered the two years just passed.

According to the American Prospect's study, between February 2004 and February 2006, women wrote just 17 percent of Times op-eds mentioning abortion, and only seven of 67 writers who touched on the subject were female. Maureen Dowd was responsible for almost half of women contributors? few mentions of abortion, but in her ten years writing for the op-ed page she has never dedicated a column to the subject of women's reproductive rights, according to the Prospect. Pro-choice advocacy groups such as the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood Parenthood Federation of America have been totally absent from the Times' opinion pages over the past two years.

Above blurb from Feminist Majority Foundation's news wire; original American Prospect 3/20/06 web study/article by Senior Editor Garance Franke-Ruta here. Alternate posting of the article here at Alternet.

May also be of interest: A FAIR.org (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) archived piece similarly documenting 1500 (two years worth of) abortion-related news articles covering 1989-1990 in which Tiffany Devitt writes:

.. as is the case with other social policy issues such as civil rights or welfare, abortion is more often covered not from the perspective of those most affected by the issue, but from the standpoint of Washington politics.

...What is striking in the coverage of abortion in mainstream media is the lack of opportunities that U.S. women have to speak for themselves and articulate their concerns. Although stories regularly carried the soundbites of abortion-rights representatives and anti-abortion spokespersons, the women affected by specific restrictions were rarely cited as sources in abortion stories.

Wonder how much that's changed in 16+ years?

Uh oh, she'll be hammered by the right-wing pundits as part of the 'liberal press'

"What's interesting about the censure resolution is that Democrats propose crazy things all the time, but this one has struck a nerve with Republicans. They went batty. And I think that's because a lot of voters are annoyed that [Republicans have] challenged Bush on almost nothing. They're willing to make an issue on the little stuff (budget cuts for education) but not on the big stuff (whether lies were told, laws were violated)."

From: Post Politics Hour, a live chat with Shailagh Murray,Washington Post Congressional Reporter, Washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion (emphasis mine).

Quote of the day & religious pandering

This pandering, this compromising nexus between religiosity and cultural currency, has leaked into all our discourses. It's no surprise that "faith" has been ascendant these last several years ...

It's not an ahistorical accident that we more often look to a "higher power" to help cope with feelings of powerlessness: our society contains no shortage of irrational darkness; our current government represents the economic interests of a very few and seems moreover committed to hegemony over other religions and cultures; lobbying dollars decide more and more of our foreign and domestic policies, rendering "one person, one vote," increasingly obsolete.

From "Trafficking in the Radiant: The Spiritualization of American Poetry" by Ira Sadoff. Apparently first appeared in The American Poetry Review Jul/Aug 2005 issue, but I came across it here.


Quote #2:

The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

...These developments have warped the Republican Party and its electoral coalition, muted Democratic voices and become a gathering threat to America's future. No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system.

From Kevin Phillips in WaPo editorial on 4/2/06 entitled "How the GOP Became God's Own Party".

LIAR LIAR...Top strategy for being elected & re-elected

Froomkin adds to the growing chorus of those documenting the evidence that BUSH LIED, CHENEY LIED, RICE LIED, TENET LIED, POWELL LIED, RUMSFELD LIED...(it goes without saying that ROVE LIED), et al by providing an important heads-up, reminder and link to Murry Waas's singular work at the National Journal.

....time and time again, Bush and his aides have selectively leaked or declassified secret intelligence findings that served their political agenda -- while aggressively asserting the need to keep secret the information that would tend to discredit them.

....new twist is that Rove apparently understood that if American voters found out how Bush had intentionally misled them, the election might be lost. He was intent on not letting that happen.

Waas's narrative also helps explain why the White House felt so compelled to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson's charge in May 2003 that another key justification for war was manifestly false.

They LIED and MANIPULATED, and continue to do so. People like McCain, DeLay & Frist have learned the lessons (of how many Americans -- especially social conservatives -- will reward deception and mendacity with mindless loyalty and votes since after all, it's more important to keep queers from marrying and Mexicans from migrating than making sure people have healthcare, housing, livable wages and violence-free, non-toxic environments...) and are following suit, as probably have some feckless dems too, unfortunately.

Waas can be found here and here. Froomkin here.

Fear Factor in the False Dichotomy Zone

Tip-o-the-hat to The CapeCodToday.com's Opinionator for the above cartoon by Wuerker and for the heads up on a recent New Yorker article/exposé by Nick Lehman, Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University.

Opinionator's take on the article:

The article is called "Fear Factor" and .... riveted me by its treatment of O'Reilly's history in broadcasting and the forces which have shaped his public persona. In the 80's he was a reporter for CBS and while vacationing on the Cape, discovered that Provincetown was a gay Mecca. He took a camera man down there and did a piece on what a bad influence that was on teenagers. CBS would not broadcast it and he left the network shortly thereafter.

Lemann writes about the out-of court sexual harassment settlement with Fox News producer Andre Mackris two years ago, his hatred of Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, the ACLU, George Clooney and many others. These days he can only get minor liberal luminaries to debate him, removing some of the color from his confrontations. The writer describes his "nimble" gift of coming across as a populist, decent, straight shooting American commentator.

The writer sees O'Reilly's 10 years of longevity as uncommon in show business, referring to his "baroque" period. Lemann writes that he has risen to the top in ratings because of his ability to remind his viewers how much the left hates him. An interesting observation is that he defies description as liberal or conservative on many issues. He is, for instance, against the death penalty, for gay marriage and not completely against abortion. He may not be all that fair and balanced, but Lemann maintains that Fox viewers understand that means "the news the way you already see it."

Lehman's conclusions don't leave much room for optimism regarding the state of cable 'news' programs, "increasingly a medium of outsize, super-opinionated franchise personalities."


Opinionator here. Lehman's New Yorker article here.

Maybe Russert has temporarily found his backbone

Tim Russert must have been getting hell from real journalists for his role as a PR spokesman, apologist and softball tosser for this administration and the right during these past -- oh I don't know, five plus years?

He recently had the authors of Cobra II, who have criticized this admin's handling of the war and today Timmy boy finally had Gen. Anthony Zinni on Meet the Press -- Zinni is the retired Marine Corps General who was the Central Command (CentCom) Chief. General Zinni explained that loyalty is secondary and inconsequential to performance, results, integrity, ethics, honesty and actual outcomes. And that the true, highest purpose of the military is to prevent war and ensure peace.

Now there's a concept. He also had the guts to call for Rumsfeld's resignation (or rather, firing). He pointed out that not one asshole has been held accountable for ANY of the fiascos they have flubbed during the past five and a half years.

General Zinni pretty much accused everyone around big bad Shrub of lying about WMD, cherry picking intelligence and being determined to go to war (even prior to 9-11). Too bad he let Shrub off the hook, but I suppose he's being intellectually honest in that he doesn't know for sure about the Prez, but he does know about the intelligence and the others who are the loyal footservants to the Imperial prince (aka President Bush).

Zinni seems to be a leader in the tradition of Eisenhower and Grant; someone who thinks of the actual well-being of the citizens FIRST, believes in the highest ideals of democracy and is not one who has to prove his machismo by spilling and wasting the blood of soldiers and innocent citizens in order to show who's boss man of the world. (and let's not even talk about the multi-billions of dollars which could have been used to improve so many lives -- health, jobs, housing -- in this country and many others around the world! This administration has perpetrated immoral acts on this country, Iraq and the world community. I think they deserve not only the judgment of history but ought to be held accountable in courts of law and public opionion for their immoral, illegal, willful acts of deception and destruction. They have no shame and yet they are the instigators of some of the most shameful acts of history).

Zinni also basically said it is cowardly horseshit to claim we would have to wait 20 years to see how history judges Bush. As we should all know by now, history is not some objective truth either. It depends on who's doing the (story & myth) telling and what/whose interests they serve. (See Robert Wuhl's new show on HBO: "Assume the Position").

And he also joined the chorus of pragmatists and truth-tellers who know that simply voting or holding elections does not a democracy make.

Finally, a handful of people who aren't tip-toeing around TRUTHS or backing away from critical analysis and hard to swallow realities. I'd like to see Zinni in a position of leadership in the next round of national elections, preferably in the Democratic party to help hold their feet to the fire and to have someone who will stand up to the warmongers on the right and cowards on the left.

Zinni also has a new book, The Battle for Peace, which gets added to the recommended list!

..... and here's his prior book with Tom Clancy:

don't forget this one too, Lawless World by Philippe Sands:

FOOTNOTE: lest you think I'm actually impressed with Russert, he was less than impressive or hard-hitting with McCain, who appeared prior to Zinni. See Russert Watch at HuffPo for more on how Russert is one more who fawns over McCain and one among many in MSM (mainstream media) who perpetuate the myth of McCain as 'maverick' or 'moderate' -- more bullshit and more evidence the MSM and pop culture pundits are basically cowards who want to be popular and who join the bullies / crowd when it's safe, but don't have the gonads or backbone to speak truth to power when it matters. Unlike Murray Waas, Froomkin and a handful of others (Keith Obermann), they follow the crowd.

Welcome Home to Jill Carroll

CHEERS to Jill for surviving and to those who have even a teeny, tiny sliver of a clue about what her traumatic ordeal must have been like.

JEERS to the right wing ignoramuses and blowhards who don't have even the most remote clue nor an ounce of empathy in their intelligence-deprived pea brains (oxymoron, perhaps?) and concrete-clad hearts.

ThinkProgress has a very good series of posts documenting the worst offenders. Thanks to Random Fate and The Moderate Voice for the heads up and links to Right Wing Nut House's Rick Moran, the ONLY conservative I'm aware of who has condemned the soulless wingnuts for their vicious, hateful, closed-minded, cold-hearted, judgmental, rabid mouth foaming, decsions-made-before-facts-were-known, hate-mongering about Ms. Carroll.

...if they have an ounce of integrity, they will write a public apology. ....Jill Carroll was twice a victim -- once of jihadist terrorists who kidnapped her and once of a culture that sought to exploit her tragedy to satisfy personal ambition and ego.

Shame on us all for allowing this to happen.

Yes. Shame on all of you. The title of his post is "Twice a Victim" and can be accessed here.

.....................
Again, I reiterate: Join the 'Boycott MSNBC' calls (except for Keith Olbermann) and add WFAN radio to the boycott list -- another shrine (among many) to amoral arrested male development gleefuly celebrating the worst, most disgusting and destructive conscienseless adolescent behavior by alleged adults. (anything for money -- it's the american way)

And if any of you people seriously watch Faux News (which of course I doubt, because you probably wouldn't be reading this if you did), then feel free continue to join the Veep in his protected-Bubble-world into which facts do not intrude.

The protesters seem intent on ending border restraints, not improving immigrants' lives + Mothers leaving children behind + Europe's failed policies

From Joe Hicks in Los Angeles (a former Black Panther, previously ACLU communications department director and now Vice President of the L.A.-based human relations organization Community Advocates, Inc.) -- he's a really smart, astute, progressive yet pragmatic person and I respect him tremendously. I'm posting the entire column because it's so thoughtful and a necessary addition to the dialogue:

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans -- regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights." During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

The participation of students, some as young as 13 and 14, is especially troubling given that all too many seemed clueless about the issues. Perhaps more puzzling is that some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. The great Chicano labor organizer held a march in 1969 from the Coachella and Imperial valleys to the Mexican border. Chavez and the United Farm Workers were protesting the use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Further, Chavez believed that illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented.

What immigrant-rights groups refuse to acknowledge is that an unchecked flow of unskilled labor drives down wages for entry-level jobs, rendering all poor Americans, including millions of teenage workers, less than competitive.

Are illegal workers doing jobs that Americans won't do? This often-heard argument is specious. The reality is that most Americans won't do entry-level labor for the meager wages often offered to undocumented workers.

Activists seem focused on a political agenda that is fiercely anti-capitalist and intent on removing all border constraints. Nevertheless, protesters in Los Angeles were welcomed uncritically by the city's leaders. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the crowd of 500,000 last Saturday, "There are no illegal people here today." He added: "America was built on the backs of immigrants."

This is an obvious truism, but it obliterates the distinction between legal and illegal and mocks the rule of law. The immigration process continues to bring people from all parts of the world to these shores, but it has to be an orderly and lawful one.

Lawful or not, the United States cannot absorb all of the people who aspire to come here. A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center survey on attitudes toward immigration, conducted in part in Mexico, found that an estimated 70 million adults in Mexico would come to the U.S. if they had the means and the opportunity. About half of those said they would be willing to move to and work in this country illegally. The study also found that 35% of Mexican college graduates want to come to the U.S., even if that means they would have to work at a job below their qualifications --and many also said they'd be willing to come illegally.

What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington's politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.

He doesn't mention that when Americans travel to other countries we are expected to have IDs, passports and visas and don't find that burdensome or unreasonable. And if we move there or live there for extended periods of time we are generally expected to learn the language -- indeed, to survive, one must. It's also true that the children of immigrants do learn English once they are here and the grandchildren often have only English language skills and do not speak their grandparents' mother tongue -- which is not ideal in a global economy much less in a multi-generational, multi-cultural family.

The U.S. has done a poor job of promoting multi-language skills acquisition which is common throughout the developed nations of the world (and many undeveloped ones!). Most people I've known from Europe and Africa know at least three or four languages.

We're not exactly the most progressive, informed, educated people on the planet (despite our arrogant braggadocio) and as we continue to prove on a regular basis by the leaders we choose and the steady erosion of rights, benefits, wages, standards of living for workers, poor people and citizens already in this country, much less those who wish to join us.

Joe's column is in the LA Times.

Also in the Times, yet another compelling take on this thorny issue -- "The Love Left Behind: What will it take to keep mothers and their children from crossing the border?" -- written by Sonia Nazario whose Pulitzer Prize winning, astounding series "Enrique's Journey" has recently been released as a book.

Nazario concludes:

What I found out is that most immigrants would rather stay in their home countries with their extended families, with everything they know, than take the enormous risks required to cross the border and to make a new life here. Many women say it wouldn't take radical changes in their countries to keep them at home, by their children's sides. They say that if they had food to feed their children and clothes to put on their backs, if they could send them to school, or even if they had just the hope of doing so, they would never walk away, leaving behind their homes, their lives, the children themselves.

"Many Americans have become enamored of the European approach to immigration--perhaps without realizing it."

FAREED ZAKARIA writes (rationally, factually) about how the conservative, xenophobic (House of Representatives') approach to immigration here (who says men can't be emotional, irrational and hysterical?) in the U.S. parallels Europe's failed, conservative, xenophobic immigrant policies in the upcoming International Edition of Newsweek here.

FINAL FOOTNOTE: Here's an insightful, compassionate, first-person account of working in the agricultural fields and just how thankless and awful the work really, really is -- at The ERA Outside the Lines. They also carry the thoughtful political analysis, critiques and posts of Dr. John Bomar (living in Arkansas), whom I believe I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog. I'm on his mailing list and love to read his well-informed, opinion pieces (often based on his own first-hand experiences as well as factual research).