Soon I will post an essay on the uses of character assassination, as its use varies from the political to the merely personal. It's an interesting phenomenon. We tend to flock to it like sheep to a salt block. We've all nipped at the edges of it. It's an annoyance when used politically and it can be devastating when used personally. But more later.

Invest in our future - send in your donation to Kerry for 2004 today!

Another egregious fact attack by BushCo. The liars are in full cry.


Are you safer today than you were before Bush started his preemptive war?
Bush's Iraqi Terrorism Laboratory; Was it Worth it?

Ask the Spaniards, Phillipinos, Moroccans, Saudis, Turks and the rest of the nations that have been victims of explosion in terrorism since the Iraq Invasion if the world is a safer place thanks to George Bush.

Instead of demanding an apology, you'd think the Republicans would understand when Kerry said of them, "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." After all, aren't Republicans the masters of preemption? Or is that only the neocons?

Speaking of neocons, I wonder how it feels these days to be a Republican who has voted for Bush believing him to be a Republican only to find that he's a neocon? If he'd run as a neocon, that would be another matter, but he ran as a Republican and a compassionate conservative. No compassionate conservative I ever knew would outlaw love.

Yeah, this administration really is confused: they think gays are such a threat to society the Constitution has to be amended to forbid them from marrying. The Constitution! The most insignificant thinkers of our time believe they can improve on the Constitution. They are going to outlaw that most horrible threat to our society: the institutionalization of commitment and love between two individuals who happen to be the same sex. You've got to marvel at their grandiosity. Has anyone ever mentioned the dangers of hubris to them?

Okay, okay. I know we can't win the election on negatives, but you've just got to vent sometimes. Besides, I've always been a firm believer that you should put to good use every stray bit of luck that should happen to befall you - you know, the lemons/lemonade theory - and lucky for us Bush is in the WH. A lemon, sure, but we can use him for lemonade, providing we use enough sweetener.

Speaking of sweetener, have you sent in your contribution to Kerry's campaign yet? Come on! What are you waiting for? There's ads to write!

We gotta get rid of this scary guy because there isn't anywhere to run in a new search for religious freedom...and we need to do it before we find ourselves living The Handmaid's Tale.

Bush Tells Evangelicals He Will Fight Gay Marriage

In addition to gay marriage, Bush touted his decision last year to sign a ban on a type of late-term abortion and said, "We will vigorously defend this law against any attempt to overturn it in the courts."

He said he was working with the U.S. Congress to pass a "comprehensive and effective" ban on human cloning -- another hot button issue for Christian conservatives.

He also called on Congress to send him legislation that would make killing or harming a "child in utero" a federal crime. Critics said the bill undermines abortion rights by treating the fetus or embryo as a person, although bill sponsors said they included language that explicitly excludes abortion.


Here's an article addressing the charges that Kerry flip-flops on issues:

You all remember how Bush forbade news coverage or images of dead soldier's from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Yet he has the gall to use images from 9/11 as if he owned them.

As a matter of fact, Bush seems to have a real problem understanding the boundaries between governing and owning: he's sold our country to the highest corporate bidders, allowing them to gouge us when they provide us services or to send their jobs overseas or to counsel their employees on how to use government funds to cover the shortfall in the minimum wage jobs.

Let's start a massive media blitz and confront every newsperson who distorts the truth about Bush's record or John Kerry's character.


For example, here is the text of a letter that I sent this evening to the editor of Time Magazine :

Dear Editor,

In response to Charles Krauthammer's essay, "Why 9/11 Belongs in the Campaign:" Mr. Krauthammer maintains that images of 9/11 dead have a place in Bush's campaign because "the Bush doctrine of going after states and not just terrorists, and the implementation of that doctrine in both Afghanistan and Iraq — are central to deciding the fitness of George W. Bush to continue in office."

Yet the White House has banned news coverage and photographs of dead soldiers' returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly the result of his doctrine of going after terrorists. Does that not play a role in determining his fitness for office? How can he focus on only those images he believes will enhance his campaign while ignoring those he knows will harm it? He can't have it both ways.

Sincerely,

Dennis Kucinich was my candidate from the beginning. I believe in his platform, and I was aghast when, even though he was winning in all the internet polls on Moveon.org, he was judged by some faceless forces of the Party to be unelectable - or as they so tactfully put it, "not viable." Still, I continued to support him and my admiration for him grew as I learned more about his agenda and his character. He is a principled and couragous man. Unfortunately, I don't have the nerve to continue my support in the face of a possible loss in November. If we fail to regain the WH in November, America and Americans will suffer

John Kerry is my candidate now. I will support him until November and vote for him then. He's making the right moves today in his efforts to bring the Party together. I am listening carefully to what he promises. He will be held to his promises! Let him listen to the counsel of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, but it would be wise to take a page from Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader, too. I wish I had unlimited funds to support Kerry, but I take solace in thought that Americans are mobilizing. If we all give $25.00 or more, Kerry will have the funds to fight the corporate machine that is taking over our country.


Most fervently, I believe in ABB. Let's all fight hard to see that happen.

Just when you are about to give up on the world, you read something like this:

Another kind of spring break

Or this:

Florida Again

Much brouhaha on the DNC blog today about posters being banned and having their dissenting posts deleted. It's sad that many of the regular posters can't understand why that's undemocratic. Indeed, they vigorously defend their right to do it - or the management's right to do it, that is.

There are notable exceptions: Lance Collins, for example, wrote:

I have a bit of a problem with posts that contain no profanity or direct insults being removed and that person being blocked from posting. We're perfectly cabable of handling reasonable dissenters and ignoring the unreasonable ones.

Posted by Lance Collins :: 3/ 8/04 02:05 PM


I think many other good souls find it reprehensible, but are afraid to speak up due to a few bullying voices. When I was banned, not only were that current day's posts deleted but every post I ever made - going back well before November 2003 - vanished. Poof! Ah, the ephemeral nature of existence!

No day shall be complete without a few good links.

Here are a few more compelling reasons to banish Bush:

IUCN List Of Threatened Species

The Sixth Great Extinction: A Status Report

How Industry Won the Battle of Pollution Control at E.P.A.

Although I've given up watching what masquerades as news on the television, I happened to stumble on CNN's Wolf Blitzer this afternoon discussing a poll, as I explain in the letter I sent to CNN:

Dear Staff:

Early this afternoon, Mr. Blitzer was discussing a recent CNN poll which shows Kerry leading over Bush by a comfortable margin. However, when asked who was expected to win, Mr. Blitzer reported, those polled said - by a margin of 10 points - that they expect Bush to win. Mr. Blitzer then deserted objective news reporting to SURMISE that the reason they expect Bush to win is because they expect their friends and neighbors to vote for him.

Those polled weren't asked why they expect Bush to win. It could very well be that they expect him to steal votes and win election by whatever means necessary, as he did in 2000. Yes, that's speculation, too, and just as accurate, for all we know, as what Mr. Blitzer reported as NEWS. This is why I've virtually stopped watching TV news or listening to any radio news except for NPR. If I wanted speculation, I would read fiction, not listen to a news broadcast. The only news involved here is that CNN wants to manipulate public perceptions. Shame on Wolf Blitzer, shame on CNN, shame on the American media which has deserted its obligations to democracy.

Sincerely,

To outrage you:

Selling Death for Fun and Profit

Aristide's Final Hours

To sober you:

THE SIXTH GREAT EXTINCTION: A Status Report


To cheer you:

In Illinois poll, Kerry's cruising

You all know what a shill is, don't you? I know of at least one political blog that is composed almost entirely of shills. Sure, hapless players wander in from time to time, but for the most part, it's the same old faces loading the deck with frantic knight-errantry. It's an act of desperation. We are all consumed by fear that Bush will somehow get another four years to trash America. Still, it offends me. It isn't democratic. Now if someone comes along and tells me we can't afford democracy in our efforts to regain democracy, then I'll know that Orwell was truly a prophet, for we not only have that, we have war to win peace and tax breaks to help the deficit.

Some scoff at the idea that using the tactics of your opponents is self-destructive, but you don't have to think about it much to see the wisdom. You adopt a mantle briefly, intending to shrug it off when it isn't needed. Instead you find more and more reason for wearing it. If you can find excuses for your behavior, how do you think the other side got where they are? Can we set morality aside with impunity in our quest for victory ?

"But how can we win otherwise," you say.

I don't know the answer to that, except to say there are various ways to lose and one of them is through assimilation. I would also suggest that Gandhi prevailed without deserting the moral high ground. Martin Luther King, Jr. endured without compromising his vision. Sometimes you can accomplish your goals simply be giving the other side what they profess to want. Often it isn't as rewarding as they anticipated, and even they are appalled by what they've wrought. You just have to trust in the basic decency of humanity to set things right in the long run.

Just take Bush's war in Iraq as an example of losing by winning. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment (yes, I know it's an aching stretch) and say he was sincere in his desire to defeat terrorism in Iraq. Even if that was so, how does it change us when we attack a country that has not attacked us? How does that make us anything but terrorists ourselves? Pre-emptive war today, pre-emptive executions tomorrow? For if we can decide today, before the fact who will be a terrorist, it's a small step to decide who will be a felon deserving of the death penalty tomorrow. We're getting closer and closer to believing we can tell, genetically, who will commit crimes or develop certain mental diseases. Why not just preempt those lives? Won't we all be safer then? No more violent crimes. Do away with the chronically angry, the pedophiles, the thieves, the poor. Or why not just anybody who's out of fashion? Sure, why not?

Okay, I'm being silly now, so I'll stop, but these concerns are real. And they aren't new. People have been warning against them for over 50 years, at least.

There are times, however, when you regret riling the powerful. I'm not sure which political party is worst, but I do know that many individuals simply cannot deal with power. They are bound to misuse it.

Does anybody else see the irony of Bush's using the 9/11 dead to advance his campaign while simultaneously forbidding any photos of the flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers returned from Iraq? He wouldn't be trying to manipulate public opinion, would he?

Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?

Mr. Kerry's explanations for a number of the recent stances Republicans are branding as flip-flops have a common thread. He voted for the Iraq resolution but criticizes the war because, he says, the president "broke his promises" to exhaust the diplomatic process and use force only as a last resort.

Kerry probably thought, as many of us did, that Bush was running an elaborate bluff to get Saddam to cooperate. Who'd have dreamed he'd circumvent the UN and international law? Most law-abiding citizens couldn't imagine such a scenario. I'm sure many who voted for the war did so only to make a public show of support to indicate to Iraq the seriousness of demands for disclosure - the united front approach. Unfortunately, Bush pursued his own agenda which is why so many feel betrayed by him now.

How Ralph Nader Might Help the Democrats

....This year, Nader's candidacy might be a blessing for the Democrats.
It has to do with the benefits of negative campaigning - and how it helps and hurts candidates. We have learned some things about negative campaigning. First of all, it works. It drives away support from the candidate who is the target of a negative campaign. But there is a problem for the candidate who runs the negative campaign. Since most people do not like "dirty politics," the candidate doing the attacking loses support, too....


Alternatively, he could run on those issues that have been cast aside by both parties, then drop out, endorsing the Democratic candidate as he exits. Surely Nader knows as well as anyone how critical it is to remove Bush from office. Let's give the man some credit! He's not vindictive or stupid.


But on to other things.

I woke this morning from a dream in which a confused Dubya is holding up a shrunken woolen sweater with the words Jobs, Civil Rights, Income Equality, Security and Medical Coverage emblazoned on it that he's just extracted from a tub of hot water. A circle of Dems is standing around him, shaking their heads in dismay, saying, "No, no! We said the Deficit and Terrorism, stupid.

Any discussion of Nader is apt to elicit four letter words from normally civil people. It's sad. If we can't talk prospective Nader voters into supporting Kerry with our clear and compelling arguments, why would foul language work? And what purpose is served by expressing anger against someone who is honestly trying to do what he sees as his moral responsibility? We might sigh and shake our heads in sorrow to see him use the high road only to (potentially) foster a low blow, but we are wrong to attempt to deny his right to do so. He has a right to be wrong.

One poster - Jeffrey Biss whom I admire tremendously- on the above blog has been able to talk about Nader's goals without being marginalized, but he makes sure to preface his statements by saying that while he shares Nader's goals, he's voting for Kerry. You go, Jeffrey!

Speaking of Nader, I could tell the story of how - on a Democratic blog where I frequently post - my account was disabled when I posted material favorable to Nader. Apparently we can't even talk about his candidacy. Why am I thinking this is somehow undemocratic? Why am I embarrassed for those people who can't bear to speak his name - or hear it? Funny thing is, I'd gone back to the blog to post these pro-Nader but anti-Nader candidacy leads:

Nader's nadir?

Ralph don't run.

RepentantNaderVoter

As a blogger on the Repentant Nader site says: I plan to vote for Kerry, but I won't criticize Nader. Anyone who seriously believes that the way to dissuade people from supporting Nader is to block off all debate about the merits of his candidacy is misguided.

Contrary to popular opinion:

Nader is not an enemy of the people

The GOOD:

Krugman on Greenspan


The BAD:

Brooks on poverty

The UGLY:

America's Expanding Middle