I had been thinking of writing a post about the efficacy of rocket firing.  What Jeff recently wrote hits the nail on the head (emphasis mine):

Apologists include not only those who defend Israeli violence, but those who defend whatever diminutive forces are still launching rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.  This has nothing to with the right of an occupied people to resist – such rocket attacks are not resistance.  The rocket attacks from Gaza have no logical basis.  Engaging in war, engaging in violence, should at the least have a rational basis in the expectation that it will improve one’s situation.  However, it is abundantly clear (and has been for some time) that not only are such attacks not improving the plight of Gazans, but with a grand total of 5 fatalities, while providing a pretext for Israel to respond, are almost completely ineffective while increasingly contributing to the decimation of the civilian population of Gaza.  One might even suggest that those behind the rocket attacks are in collusion with Israeli military planners, so ineffective are such tactics.

Why do they fire rockets?  Why engage in such counterproductive actions?  Its incredibly suspicious.  Its as if, whoever is firing the rockets, wants Israel to escalate.

The rub is that if the Israelis are behind it, the rocket firing is both expected and lauded by Hamas (so it would blend in).  If Hamas is behind it, then how high a civilian cost are they willing to pay to slowly de-legitimize Israel’s statehood?  It would take hiding in civilian homes when firing rockets to a whole new level of vile.  Perhaps Hamas is simply pulling a Bush and hoping a little warfare and a common enemy will bolster their support.

My gut instinct is that what Hamas should be doing is staging massive acts of civil disobedience.  They should be engaging in actions that leave the world with no recourse but to offer support.  Because make no mistake.  With the invasion and the rockets and bombings aside, the Palestinian people are oppressed.  They are oppressed by the Israelis, and by the surrounding nations who are in various degrees complicit in the state of isolation and poverty the Palestinians are boxed into.

By the same token, one might ask of Israel what it stands to gain by invading?  Its costing them their legitimacy:

The original Zionist concept of a collaborative, diverse haven for an oppressed class of people has mutated into an ultra-militaristic state which has violently oppressed the people whose land was taken for that purpose.  No state has an inherent right to exist (did the Soviet Union?  Do countries whose borders have been drawn by occupying forces?), and for many well outside of the Middle East, Israel is losing any legitimacy it may have possessed.

Jeff is absolutely right.  And all the invasion will accomplish (as he notes further down in a post I recommend reading in its entirety) is inciting more reciprocal violence.  Israel should, rather than resorting to violence, shame and deligitimize Hamas for the attacks.  As it stands now, any such efforts would be so concentrated in their hypocrisy they might prove fatal upon observation by rational people.

What do you think?  What should the Palestinians be doing, right now?  What should the Israelis be doing, right now?  What should the US and the UN do?

Giving Warren even more mainstream cred is not just a cost-free nod to evangelicals. It’s a boost for someone who actively opposes Obama’s agenda and who is eager to influence secular affairs.

That mainstream cred may be cost-free to the evangelicals, but it comes at a deadly cost to the LGBT community…

(Mikko Allane, emphasis mine):

The problem, as many commentators have noted, is that we’re not disagreeing about abstract ideas — we’re disagreeing about civil and human rights.

I would argue that we’re disagreeing about most basic human right of all — the right to live a life free of violence.

Because words are where violence begins. And in America, violence against gays, lesbians, and transgendered people most often begins in hateful and intolerant words spoken in right-wing churches like Rick Warren’s Saddleback. Warren has compared gay and lesbian people to pedophiles and perpetrators of incest (you can watch the CNN video of his remarks here). His words may often be cloaked more politely, but in his intolerance, Warren is really no different than James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or other peddlers of anti-gay hate.

And the seeds of that hate are growing faster than ever.

This year, the FBI reported a 1% decline in hate crimes in the United States. At the same time, they revealed a 6% increase in hate crimes against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. In the past few months alone, shocking murders have been reported across the country from Oxnard, CA to Brooklyn, NY, and most recently, San Francisco.

That’s a powerful statistic.  Hate crime on average has gone down while hate crimes against the LGBT community have gone up.  Crimes including gang rape (Vanessa, Feministing):

Last Saturday in San Francisco, a lesbian was beaten and repeatedly raped by four men, while the perpetrators “made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation.” They then left the 28-year old naked outside of an abandoned apartment building, who was helped by someone living nearby.

Its impossible to imagine Obama inviting the leader of a white supremacist group attempting to gain mainstream appeal.  I can understand what Obama is going for by inviting an evangelical to the inauguration.  The problem is that the cost outweights the benefits.  He’s helping a wolf get his sheep costume on in the hope that they can work on common problems like fighting hoof and mouth disease and too much logging in the woods.  To do this he’s ignoring the sheep who go missing.

Violence against gay/bi/trans people continues to burn and Obama is helping the man with the gasoline.

So apparently Wright can be given the hook when Obama’s doing political risk assessment, but not Rick Warren. You can draw your own conclusions as to why it’s now possible, even in light of the incredible mother lode of evidence of the extreme anti-gay views of Rick Warren, that Barack Obama doesn’t feel politically inconvenienced enough to dump the Saddleback bigot.

Two reasons jump out at me.  One, that team Obama expects Warren to behave during the inauguration.  The idea is for a voice of the religious right to champion causes he shares with the incoming administration.  Obama is consensus building.  Which leads us into the second reason. Obama isn’t a liberal, no matter how fiercely he was championed by liberals (myself included) and vilified by conservatives.  He is a centrist (albeit an unusually pragmatic one with definite liberal leanings).  As such he has a much wider and more optimistic view of “his base”.  Barack Obama wants to bring evangelicals to the table.  By bringing one of their own to the stage and emphasizing where they are natural allies, perhaps he believes he’ll be able to bridge the many gaps between religious conservatives and the political mainstream.

Since there isn’t likely to be an uninvite with all that at stake, time will tell how well this move plays out.  From the painful experience of being a Democratic, Obama is supremely unlikely to mollify the religious conservative leadership no matter how much he reaches out.  But perhaps this one symbolic act in January will speak the rank and file faithful louder than their conservative religious leadership’s weekly sermons and daily rants.  Perhaps it will be worth the alienating the people who worked so hard to get him into office.

Prior to 1933 we had a lame duck Presidency for an even longer period of time.  The passage of the 20th ammendment shortened that period considerably to reflect the then modern changes in our electoral process.  There is no reason we cannot make such a change again.

The last minute laws and appointments President Bush is making no longer have the legitimacy of the vote behind them.  The simplest solution isn’t reforming the appointment process (although one would expect that contrary to Musgrave’s opinion, increasing the executive’s power to fire rather than hire would be the common sense move), it is removing or drastically reducing the period in which lame ducks have the opportunity to oppose the will of the people.

Now that we’ve successfully elected Barack Obama, we need to make sure he stays honest and true to his campaign.  This article from the Wall Street Journal uses an interview with his transition team to suggest he might not be.  When running for office:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

However the word on the street suggests otherwise:

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

“He’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues,” said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. “Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble.”

Given that this is coming from a single advisor I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be simply wishful thinking on his part, or even playing to the media’s obsessive need to claim that Obama must run a centrist administration when a largely left-wing coalition won him his office.

This is too important an issue to let alone, we need to keep the pressure on.  So I’ve started a petition (which is only a small start).  Any other ideas?

Please sign the petition asking President Elect Obama to Uphold Human Rights.

While there was no line at my polling location, there was a line at Obama hq.  People were standing in line to volunteer!  Inside, they had us waiting in a room that was burning up from all the body heat.  Not because they didn’t have enough signs.  Because so many people were coming into help they were having trouble keeping up placing them where they were needed most.

Helping out with visibility was like yesterday.  People gave thumbs up, grinned, shouted “Go Obama!”, beeped (sometimes repeatedly), and pumped their fists.  One driver in an suv pulled up and handed me a water bottle!  Another woman crossing the street stopped by to offer to buy me a drink from Cosi.  We regularly got compliments and instructions to “keep up the good work” from passersby.  Two old ladies walking back from voting strolled past headed to starbucks for their free coffee.  One gave my shoulder a playful punch saying “We done voted, don’t get wet now!” with a big grin.  It was raining, and not a McCain/Palin volunteer in sight.  Just grins and Obama/Biden signs.

I didn’t see anywhere near this kind of enthusiasm or turnout in 2006.  Today Virginia feels blue.

There are many reasons to vote:

And I’m not saying there’s a possibility we might not end up regretting Obama. But that’s a lot better than the 100% certainty I think we’d have of regretting Vice President Palin.

Palin shouldn’t be in office.  No matter who was running, I’d vote to keep her further than a heartbeat from the highest office in the country.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Write to Marry Day!

Arguments in favor of California’s Proposition 8 are a fascinating study in hate apologetics.  Just as with the “life begins at conception” anti-choice movement or the pro-creationism lobby, from the start there is an intense pressure to hide the religious foundations beneath the nearest available logic-like substitute.  It comes down to an often hilarious yet very sobering look into the kind of people who think discrimination belongs in the California state constitution.

The favored defenses of institutionalized bigotry are:

• Cultural Definition/Clarity
• Protecting the Institution of Marriage, Social Role of Traditional Families, Etc
• Claiming Same Sex Relationship are Unnatural
• OMG They Will Make Our Children Gay
• Majority Rule vs Courts
• Protecting Religious Freedom

The first argument goes something like this (DocDodson’s first comment):

Marriage law in this culture represents one thing.
A man and a woman. For clarity another word must be used to represent any other type of union. Specifications reject confusion. Now, Let’s do talk about religion. If you attend a church, would it be a church of God in Christ, or a church of Satan? What if you walked into a building that just said church, and became trapped? You thought it was one thing, but you got trapped in another. Deciet is a horrible thing. Misrepresentation of values, a crime.

I can see why DocDodson is afraid, who would want to become trapped forever in a building that “just said church”?  Its painfully easy to dismiss the idea that straight people might become so confused by marriage in a post prop-8 world they might accidentally marry someone of the same sex.  The cultural definition provides more to go on.  This argument is remarkably similar to the Southern Way of Life arguments against racial equality:

The Southern way of life divided the world into white and black – sacred and profane.  In this sacred way of life, all who were white were viewed as fully human and all who were black as less than human.

The anti-gay movement and the support for proposition 8 shares a lot in common with the racist campaign against equality during the civil rights era, as this brilliant video hack shows (via Amanda at Pandagon):

By taking the Morman Church’s campaign against equality regardless of sexual orientation and substituting in “interracial” for “same-sex”, they’ve effectively shown the true colors of those who claim to champion family values.

Which leads us to the next three arguments, which often go together.  The basic idea is that Same sex marriages somehow:

• Effect opposite sex marriages
• Go against the purpose of marriage, which is to further society (ie make more people)
• Provide an Immoral/Unnatural/Icky Environment for Children

The first point is the easiest to tackle.  One can simply look to Massachusetts, which has a complete lack of “Well, gay marriage is now legal” statements in divorce proceedings.  The opportunity to point out the utter nonsense of this argument is not one to squander.  At its heart is the idea that the actions of some can affect the morality of unrelated persons.  The reasoning is remarkably close to the heart of many pro religion-state marriage partisans:  Its about removing temptation so the weak do not succumb to what they view as sinful.  We need look no further than the tendency of Republican officials – paragons of morality – to seek out prostitutes and other sexual activities they rail against in public.  It is religious conservatives of all stripes who seek to institute a nanny state.

The second point is often lightly dealt with by referring to childless marriages, and offering to institute a deadline for producing offspring for marriage licenses to remain valid.  Anyone foolish enough to walk into this arguing that would be fine by them can be shamed by bringing up the example of infertile couples.

Against the third point there is some encouragement to find in popular culture (Apple Trailer: Breakfast With Scot). This boils down to two implied arguments:  That homosexuality is learned behavior (which feeds into the paranoia about children even being taught same sex couples exist), and that homosexuality is ok “for adults who already are gay, but not for children!”.  The clear implication being that despite all the assurances to the contrary, people who use this argument are really wearing their homophobia on their sleave.  The best thing to do is to bring the discussion back to the biological basis of sexual preference, and to argue so as to bring out their homophobia into the light, where you can then counter that they have no place forcing their fear and hate on the general public.

To quote Comparative Religious Ethics again:

The Southern way of life divided the world into white and black – sacred and profane.  In this sacred way of life, all who were white were viewed as fully human and all who were black  as less than human.  Therefore Southern white morality did not require whites to treat blacks with the same dignitiy that they treated each other.  For a black person to enter the sacred space of white society, except under strictly controlled conditions, was to pollute that space.

The fear and hate of homophobia, combined with the disapproval of religious authority, has had a similarly violent impact on homosexuals.  When people are viewed as hateful, less than human, or a sinful influence, they become objects of aggression.  Opposition to same sex marriage is innately eliminationist in its expression.

We now arrive at the last two arguments for proposition 8, wherein the anti-gay movement tries to have it both ways at once (preservingmarriage.com):

One the one hand, the anti-gay contingent is intent on insisting their religious freedom to believe homosexuals are sinners are at risk, and need to be protected.  They are however quite comfortable with ensuring their beliefs restrict all same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as straight couples.  With regard to their perceived vulnerability to a flood of lawsuits demanding churches marry homosexuals, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to back up this kind of fear (mormonapologetics.org, emphasis mine):

But will it happen? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages, even when it contradicts their religious convictions?

No one can see the future, but we can look to the past for similar situations. The closest comparison I can think of is the legalization of interracial marriage. I’ve searched and searched, but I can’t find a single case where a church was forced to perform an interracial marriage. From a broader perspective, the same argument could be applied to civil rights as a whole. The civil rights era created anti-discrimination legislation which was applied to public and private institutions, but churches were (and still are) exempt from such laws. The LDS church was free to deny priesthood status to blacks until it decided on its own to end the practice. The government never attempted to force the LDS church to change its policies regarding blacks, even though those policies were racist and discriminatory. The church was never threatened with the loss of tax exempt status for those policies.

History shows that churches will be free to practice their religion, even when such practices are discriminatory. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the hysterical arguments now being put forth with respect to same sex marriage.

Further down in the same thread, there is a link to a California law professor debunking the legal threat:

Kaimi Wenger, a law professor addressed this question in a discussion of the legal issues in California, and his conclusion was that it is unlikely that the Church would be required to perform same sex marriages.

http://ldshomosexuality.com/?p=168

Given that churches have in the recent past successfully barred interracial marriage, I doubt they’ll have much trouble being just as bigoted when it comes to same sex marriage.

This leaves the desire of the anti-gay mob to force their religious beliefs on all Californians.  And they are increasingly acting not just like a mob, but like the mob (SFGate via August):

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

No word on whether or not in addition to being “outed”, supporters of gay rights would wake up next to a disembodied horse’s head:

Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.

“It’s truly an outrageous attempt to extort people,” Kors said.

A church is acting like the mafia to protect institutionalized inequality and hate.  Their excuse for doing so is mind boggling:

She called the tactic “a frustrated response” to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign.

Individuals act out inappropriately and the response is to extort business owners?  WTF?

Its an incredibly stupid move, and one we can help backfire simply by bringing more attention to it.

I’ll close with this video (through Feminist Law Professors via Samhita at Feministing):

I’d like to draw your attention to a particular scene at the end where one of the “No on 8″ counter protestors attempts to debate with the “Yes on 8″ supporters.  Unable to defend their desire to impose their views on others, they break into a chant, drowning out the lone “No on 8″ activist, literally turning their backs on him.

There is literally no room for nuance on an issue like this.  Supporters of Propostion 8 are on shaky ground with only veiled appeals to theocratic tendencies to lean on.  In contrast the opponents of Prop 8 have their shit remarkably together, and are willing to engage in smart and reasoned discourse.

Equality California has an Action Center and a helpful Ways to Get Involved page.  It also isn’t too late to donate.

An Obama aide tells ABC News that Secret Service headquarters “would be notified of anything that mentioned” Obama. But adds that “it never rose to any sort of serious level,” which explains why Obama’s personal detail was not notified.

Rather than explaining why the candidate’s detail was not notified, it raises questions about how seriously the government is pursuing these plots. Despite the FBI’s push to charge the Colorado Three, Troy Eid (a Rove Apppointee) dismissed the charges. This makes me wonder:

Is this administration — and particularly this Justice Department, as deeply compromised as it has become by the Bush White House’s crass politicization — capable of ensuring that true threats against Democratic figures like Obama are taken seriously and dealt with appropriately?

These men were found with firearms, and further investigation may lead to more charges. The Attorney General for Tennessee is Democrat Robert E. Cooper Jr, appointed in 2006. His office can be contacted here by phone.  It can’t hurt to encourage his office to take this threat with appropriate gravitas.

The ATF says it has broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree.

In court records unsealed Monday, agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target an unnamed but predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.

No more details are available currently.  Lot’s of questions remain:

Are there any links between the neo-nazi’s and existing hate groups?  How many assasination plots are currently under investigation?  Would Sarah Palin consider these skinheads terrorists?

NEW YORK, New York – Syrian military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on United States territory close to the border with Canada, killing eight people in a strike the government in Washington condemned as “serious aggression.”

A Syrian military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through America into Canada. The Sysrians have been unable to shut the network down in the area struck because the US was out of the military’s reach.

“We are taking matters into our own hands,” the official told The Associated Press in Damascus, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of Syrian forces stationed in the eastern states said Syrian troops were redoubling efforts to secure the United States border, which he called an “uncontrolled” gateway for fighters entering Canada.

A United States government statement said the helicopters attacked a small family run Farm near the town of Malone, fifteen miles inside the US border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.

The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.

We read about US attacks inside another country’s soil all the time.  We also hear the remarks from the country.  How would you feel if American civilians, including children, were killed when another country invaded our territory without our permission?  What if it was to fight a war much of the world (and much of that country’s citizenry) condemned as unjust and unlawful?  If the invading forces were widely seen as using their force to secure that country’s power?

Both candidates would support cross border raids.

At about 30 strong, the crowd of children gathered outside the metro entrance in Arlington were an overcrowded-classroom full of energy and enthusiasm.  A few parents waded through the Obama/Biden signs, yet this was all the work of one 11 year old student: Mariah Brescia-Weller.

Mariah had put together an impressive show of force.  I talked briefly with her about the rally (note to self: should have brought a tape recorder!  I will paraphrase from my notes).  As we glossed over initial motivations (Excitement about the election, and wanting to channel that excitement and energy into persuading people to vote for Obama), issues came up.  Education, Health Care, Woman’s Right’s, Taxes, Immigration.  I found that last one rather interesting coming from an eleven year old.  So I inquired further.  Mariah had friends who were in various stages of immigration, and it was very important to her that the next president be someone who would help them.  The idea of the personal driving the political occured again when another Obama supporter, Jeremy, chimed in.  He knew a 5th grader who broke her arm, and had no health insurance.

I spoke with one of the mothers, Sandra, about where political beliefs come from at such a young age.  She acknowledged that some were sure to come from parents, but kids have their own ideas on things.  Pressed further she shared that she’d noticed with her son this year, when they watched the debates, he’d become incredibly animated and engaged around the issues that struck him.

Two elections from now these children will be voting, and they are a part of Northern Virginia’s continuing journey to blue state status.  Its easy during an election to focus purely on those eligible to vote.  But an election is an opportunity to invite people into the process of active citizenship.  All of the kids at that rally have taken a wonderful step into a life of civic engagement.  In particular Mariah, who at 11 was articulate, to the point, and organized a political event.  Her mother is a wonderful person for encouraging and nurturing her daughter’s political expression.  She’s also wise.  We can all use this election to meet future senators, community organizers, and activists.  In 7 years children like Mariah will be voting.  Imagine where they will be in 27.

The level of discourse from McCain is truly awe inspiring, if by awe inspiring one means lower than whale shit.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it. “At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives,” McCain said in a radio address. “They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it’s just another government giveaway.”

Now I don’t want to worry the passport averse US populace but erm Europe is not um ‘socialist‘ neither are any of its ‘leaders‘. Jeebus knows that if it was we would be in a lot less shit over the Neoliberal created crisis in global capital. Certainly there are remnants of social democracy still persisting in Europe against the free market onslaught by and for the wealthy, but socialist? Not even fucking close. And that’s another thing, McCarthyism may have done its job in the US but socialist is not a dirty word.

So what might the American record on poverty be? Has the ‘wealth creation‘ and ‘trickle down‘ of the Neoliberal policies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton & Bush (W) meant an equal society? The simplest measure is the Gini coefficient-

Click to enlarge

Yes you’re the yellow line, notice how it meandered along until 1980 then it began climbing steadily through both Republican and Democrat administrations. That is because all of them adhered to Neoliberal economic policy. Look at the climbs for other countries and they also coincide with the introduction of Neoliberal dogma. Or how about pay disparity as a rough guide-

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to “Executive Excess,” an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies. That’s not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1. Still, it’s quite a leap year over year, and it ranks on the high end historically. In 1990, for instance, CEOs made about 107 times more than the average worker, while in 1982, the average CEO made only 42 times more.

Obama’s plans are better than McCain’s who is using a straw man argument of an imaginary pinko Europe and thinks society is best served by growing inequality as the rich become richer than they have ever been. His preferred newspeak for this is ‘wealth creation‘ and his demonisation of even modest stabilising measures becomes ‘government giveaway‘ which tells you his attitude to democracy. Government is the one powerful institution the people have some control over, thus he wants to weaken that tiny speck of power redistribution, also perversely as the government is only spending the people’s money it is not a giveaway, it is returning capital to the populace. That it might in some small fashion do this in a way that does not amplify the growing inequality is what he objects to.

Much has been made of the racism, belligerence and ignorance of McCain supporters at rallies but this is only to be expected for a party that governs in the interests of a tiny elite of the very wealthy. They cannot rule on the votes of 1% of the nation so they very deliberately target the least informed, worst educated who will not be aware they are voting against their own best interests. Of course their polices, in a feedback loop, further create uninformed poorly educated people who cannot share in the wealth of the nation but have been convinced that government is bad and rich people are accorded godlike status. People are encouraged to look upon a billionaire’s wealth not as a theft from the public commons but a sign of achievement and probable moral superiority to the ‘undeserving poor’. It is also not unexpected that conservative religious charlatans have invented the ‘prosperity doctrine‘ which assigns divine right to the pursuit of riches in a remarkable reading of the bible that is akin to walking out of Star Wars with the impression the Empire is the good guy.

Speaking of which it is interesting that imperialism remains largely absent from popular discourse, America is the only Imperial power on Earth spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined and with 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries, yet it’s citizen’s are kept largely unaware of the dynamics of imperialism. When blowback occurred on 911 many asked why do they hate us? Few perceived it to be a form of resistance albeit monstrous and from a millionaire trained by the CIA who had succumbed to fundamentalist fantasies that estranged him from his well connected family. But that’s ruling classes for you, pursuing disputes for power and wealth causing themselves little harm but resulting in the deaths of the lower classes. Look at George W. Bush in his champagne unit (before he went AWOL) and Cheney with his deferments while the poverty draft supplies the murder machine overseas.

Why no universal healthcare- look at the military budget. Why poor education- look at the military budget. Why ineffective welfare- look at the military budget. And now we can add look at the billions the banks got immediately, but there is no money for institutions that would benefit the people. Choices have been made, the global armed robbery that is imperialism at its simplest takes precedent over nurturing human beings. It’s the elephant in the room (usually communicated in the newspeak of ‘a strong America‘) , it took a shattering world war and the collapse of our empire before Britain got some institutions of human necessity, a health service, welfare, a less unequal education system, incidentally all things now under threat thanks to the economic imperialism of the market fundamentalists. Neoliberal dogma evangelised by Milton Friedman and whose implementation in Latin America was deemed justification for the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of people (helpfully sped along with American training, funding and military ‘advisors’) is the neoconservatism of economics and attempts to make it palatable (risible bilge like ‘Freakonomics’) persist in corporate media even as its failure is manifest in the collapsed financial markets. Its end stage authoritarianism is now emerging in the homeland of the ideology, interrogation has replaced the word torture in the corporate media lest it offend the elite who legalised it, police at the RNC had insurance against brutality claims and Iraq traumatised troops are now deployed domestically for the first time ever.

From ‘socialist‘ Europe it appears quite clear McCain heads a movement that could easily be termed crypto fascist. Obama is a centrist, a conservative in some respects but given the choice (such as it is) it is not unsurprising the world wants to see him heading the American Empire. Being as the rest of the world has to live with this leviathan we would at least like someone who doesn’t enjoy jokes about bombing countries (not surprising for a man who dropped bombs on civilians, Kurt Vonnegut noted that quality also in George Bush snr. such pilots never see the death they cause, they have a different perception of war from the lowly infantry private).

But liberals/progressives/leftists will remain disappointed with the people they get elected (if they still can) until the two great underlying pressures on any administration, Neoliberal economic policy and imperialism, are challenged. This is even more pressing with the crisis caused by the ideology of free market fundamentalists, with a recession settling in societies react by becoming more authoritarian/fascist or they embrace social democracy with government by and for the people. That the barest hints of social democracy are hysterically called socialist or Marxist is simply a sign of how far to the right the conservative movement has moved in America and of their likely intentions underneath the spin (and their historical animus toward FDR, Prescott Bush (before he laundered the Nazis money) was involved in planning a fascist coup against his administration and removing the last vestiges of the New Deal is still among conservatives list of priorities).

If you are a migrant in America you already know what the state will do to the powerless, paramilitary raids, detention in camps, deaths in custody and pervasive hate propaganda in the media. As money continues to accrue at the top of society so does power, McCain is showing he is all in favour of this, which means more people will become powerless. An Obama win is but one step towards fighting that process, that in a way is the only revelation ‘socialist‘ Europe can send America, leaving it to people in power to govern is an invitation to tyranny, constant engagement and keeping democratic processes healthy are essential. Otherwise as billionaire Warren Buffet admitted, the class war exists and will continue to be won by the rich. Those billionaires, bunch of Reds.

Massachusetts is also a state where Gay Marriage has been legal for quite some time. Looking over at the fight brewing in California makes me a little nostalgic. MA has its fair share of theocrats too.

This is something we need to be clear about. Anyone opposing the freedom of consenting adults to enter into the bonds of marriage with each other is doing so to impose their religious views on the entire country.  This line from the Wall Street Journal caught my eye:

Mormon leaders, on the church’s official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.”

There is just no justification on this green Earth for using a ballot measure – an instrument of state – to enforce church teachings.  None.  This shit burns me up.  Sarah Palin, the Republican VP candidate is eating it up:

The issue has come up in the presidential campaign, with Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, suggesting this week that she would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide.

She’s signaling just as clearly as she can that if elected, she’ll use her power as Queen of the U.S. Senate to begin pushing her Bible on our laws.

Its getting to a point where its just too much to take.  Check out this video of a McCain/Palin supporter (via an especially pertinent and brilliant post at Pandagon):

Its marked the first time I’ve felt strongly “This person shouldn’t have the right to vote”.  This thought startled and upset me as soon as I had it, since I strongly believe everyone has the right to vote (and ought to be encourage to).  Faith in this sense is not a virtue.  It is a liability.  It is a knife through the heart of reasoned discourse.  Watching that video, do you think it remotely possible to discuss positions and substance with that woman and get anywhere at all?  Everything comes down to this black and white binary of whether it fits into her personal religious view, and there is no room for anything other than the comfortable dogma she knows by rote.

What it comes down to is this rage and this conviction I have.  That however I feel about the election, I want with every ounce of me to resist a small but vocal segment of this country dragging us all deeper into their theocratic pit.

to the theocrat:

this is the land of the free

you won’t tread on me

]]> http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/10/theocrats-dont-tread-on-me/feed/ 1 http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/10/palin-and-obama-the-truth-behind-the-kill-him-remark/ http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/10/palin-and-obama-the-truth-behind-the-kill-him-remark/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:30:29 +0000 Dan http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=267 The Weekly Standard is claiming no one ever said “Kill Him” in reference to Barack Obama.

If in point of fact that comment was directed at Ayers (tell me again whether McCain and Palin’s more ignorant supporters hold any difference between Ayers, Obama, liberals in general, or Democrats), it doesn’t explain this second remark (Times Tribune via Justice League):

There were no incendiary outbursts from the crowd about Mr. Obama during Mrs. Palin’s speech, as there have been during other recent McCain-Palin rallies.

However, someone did shout out, “Kill him!” during Republican congressional candidate Chris Hackett’s remarks before Mrs. Palin took the stage.

The outburst came during a round of booing from the crowd after Mr. Hackett said Mr. Obama should come to Pennsylvania and learn what the state’s values are.

The right is in full spin control mode on this.  Nothing upsets the right wing like being justifiably accused of terrorism (Orcinus).  John Leo writes:

A Huffington Post piece by one Jeffrey Feldman asked, “Is Palin Trying to Incite Violence against Obama?” ‘Two subheads in this piece were worse: “McCain Camps Talk ‘Character Assassination,’Supporters shout for real assassination” and “McCain Campaign Amplifies Violent Rhetoric. GOP Crowd Threaten Obama’s life.” Nothing like this happened. No crowd threatened Obama, or called for his assassination. Millbank’s article, the only primary source for “ugliness” at Palin’s speech did not report this, probably because these incendiary events occurred only in the minds of some liberal writers, not in the real world.

He uses the tried and true right wing method of tactical right wing bullshit: projection.  Thus far we have the Scranton threat, the Ayers-aimed threat, and the plot to assasinate Obama.  In the right wing world “Documented by the press” constitutes the imaginary.  Facts and Rationality fly out the window in the effort to make a point, which the Weekly Standard is only too happy to demonstrate with its attempt at balance:

The only nastiness I heard during the day was an outburst, apparently provoked by Obama supporters who wandered into the crowd outside just as I had to leave. I was too far away to hear the exact exchange, so I couldn’t write it up—although clearly such limitations don’t limit the MSMers who repeat the “kill him” myth—but others were closer and able to report on the friendly, tolerant rhetoric of the Left, whose members were calling McCain a “murderer.”

Obviously one can point out that in addition to calling Obama a murderer, the right has aggressively and falsely called him a baby killer.  But I don’t understand how calling a man a murderer, presumably for his role as a warmonger, is in any way equivalent to calling for a man’s assasination.

Its bullshit like this that feeds the fire of the violent right wing and seeks to muffle media coverage.

The question reporters ought to be asking to the campaign is why haven’t McCain and Palin made forceful statements against both the explicit violence and its implicit sources?  The Republicans should answer for relying on veiled nativist attacks and exploitation of eliminationist sentiment.