July 2004 Archives

More good jabs from Krugman on the Bush over Kerry slams:

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Triumph of the Trivial

Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.

Not only that, but it is highly likely that Bush is richer than Kerry. His family is certainly one of thje richest, He went to Yale, and his Dad also grew up well off. What' s worse, is that with all the bowing to big money being done by the Bush white house, he's getting even richer at the expense of the American taxpayer, while as Krugman points out and I heard Kerry say, he will roll back the tax cuts for those making over 200k a year and put it into Health Care.

I read another of Krugman's NYTImes articles, and I think I like this guy.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Triumph of the Trivial

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.

I saw The Manchurian Candidate yesterday, and it led me to look at Ebert's review, where he mentions this article by Paul Krugman of the NYTimes (a non-NYTImes link here (from Truthout) , which is called The Arabian Candidate. From all the mounds of "coming out of secrecy" being done by scores of now former Bush administration people, and the lopsided toward "getting Bush out" vs "Pro-Bush" books in the political books at the bookstore, it is not so wildly conspiratorial to see the eerily possible connections between what may be close to reality and what Krugman is suggesting.

I also read an article for Esquire written by Ron Regan that is absolutely no-punches pulled (The Case Against George W. Bush ) (courtesy Dan Gilmour's EJournal, who , by the way, has a new book just released called We, The Media --which is on its way to me via Amazon, along with a copy of Trippi's book, which I've already read, and wanted a copy for myself, and House of Bush , House Of Saud)

My previous post bemoans how the Religous Right so narrowly defines the "morality" they espouse. Their two BIG issues , abortion and homsexaulity, I identify as practically the only componetns to this "morality" platform. As I have pointed out before, I don't have a problem with opposing abortion. It is , for me, like war, only to be used in extreme conditons, in self-defense, as a regrettable last resort.

That the Religious Right hammers on this topic is not where I am concerned, but it is in the almost total neglect and oppostie position they take from "Sanctity of Life" on almost ALL other issues, such as war (which certainly kills thousands upon thousands of innocents). TO me, the Democratic party espouses far more concern for "quality of life" than do the Republicans. The Republicans are also the preference of the companies who consider it a threat to be regulated in any way, for that COSTS them far more than having free reign to "do their business" without having to be OVERLY concerned about environmental impact or having to deal with the actual PEOPLE's needs who work for them. If people wouldn't complain so much about work conditions, their businesses could make a larger profit. Republicans are increasingly becoming the "free ride" and "all obstacles overboard" party, and are raking in massive political contributions from the corprations, and rewarding them with government positions regulating the very issues for which they lobby (and contribute). The FCC guy they have in there now is a dream for the big media owners and shareholders.

Bill Moyers, in Moyers On America (see my previous post), which I am now reading and finsihing up, is understandably appalled. His insightful and revealing media studies such as God and Politics, The Public Mind, and The Religions of Man (with Huston Smith), and his news shows such as the one he has now ("NOW"), have been sources of inspiration and information for me. I hope that PBS will drop the prices of their DVD collections of such shows ($59.95 a per show, and so each of those series' may run as much as $400 and up? Come on! I just bought OUtfoxed for $10. Productions such as this need to get into the public and be the springboard for some actual discussion and dialogue about how Mainstream Media is siphoning off real debate (for me, it's Mainstream Media, not "Liberal Media". The Mainstream Media's problem is chasing profits, when we need "Prophets" who alert us to the backroom discussions, polling, and bottom-line analyzing of the impact of stories, political issues , and the like.

focusing on the two twin demonic evils of the Left in the viewpoint of the religious right: Abortion and Homesexuality. Totally missing are concerns (of which they- the Religous Right--- have NONE) about ALL OTHER issues of some social impact and significance, like poverty, environment, war, and democracy itself, which is being sold out from under all of us, and all of Mr. Mohlers' constituency included).

It sickens me, EVERY DAY, how the Religous Right, and the Southern Baptists have ceased to become Baptist and are instead some sort of Empire Religion with the theological sophistication of....well, the words escape me. Al Mohler is a perfect example of how narrowly they define the issues, and how ferciously they defend a ploitcal party that to all most balanced observers, are engaged in the most disgusting campaign andf operation of deciet and capitualtion to the large companies that it defies the imagination. What's ironic is that most of their constiuents will suffer along with the rest of non-rich Americans under the reckless derliction of duty being carried out by the "Bush Busineses" and Caheney, Rove, and all their corporation buddies like "Kenny Boy".

When I saw a report that one of Kerry's biggest contributors is suspected to have ties to the mob, I immediately shook my head that they would even try this tact; Where is Bush's biggest contributor? In Prison. Kenny Boy. Where is the special prosecutor that gave Dubbya his free pass from insider trading? On the Bush administration.

I subscribe to Mohler's Web articles (I won't call it a "Weblog" becuase it is basically an online magazine using some weblog tool that omits everything that a Weblog is other than RSS, which enables people to be notified of new articles, but missing are comments or trackbacks. Anyway, Mohler wrote what he considers an "expose" of Kerry, but its the same fundamentalist drivel that the Southern Baptists depend on to "push through" their candidates, whom they have unilaterally supported to the total exclusion of the most obvious messages in the Bible straight from the lips of Jesus:

I can't quite take seriously the idea of a Bush economy, so inept is Bush intellectually when compared to any president in recent memory. It is common knowledge amongst political folks that Bush doesn't read anything about policy unless he has to for appearance. Clinton read more in a typical month of his term than Bush has read in his entire time in office, probably b a factor of 2. Bush rejects any policy papers longer than a half page!

By the way, the Bush econmony has been ranked as the weakest in the last 60 years. All the Bush aplogist rep couold offer was that he inherited bad trends, but so did Clinton, and so do any presidents coming off economic depression. In fact, the past 2 Bushes have turned economies around in the wrong direction. Yeah, they inherited an economy at the end of a boom, but with deficits ballooning under both, and the almost blatant favoring of the richest Aemericans gettging an obscene amount of the "tax relief" (which the GOP mistakenly and naively assumes that they will feed back into the economy ----wrong, they hoard, and they seek ever greater advantages, and ever greater loopholes, and even more secrtetive and corrupt handling of finances -- ie. Kenny Boy Lay , Bush's own "insider trading" scandals, Cheney's dirty ties with Hallerburton, and it goes ON and ON

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Paying for Politics: What Oil Buys | PBS

I continue to be amazed at how quickly Republican pundits seem aghast and offended or even "amused" by the suggestions that oil interests hold sway over politics. Do they actually believe that the GOP is NOT? Even when it is glaringly obvious that much of the Bush administration, especially the Royal Bush family itself (Royal is INDEED an intended link , visa vi The Saudi Royal Family) with such longstanding involvement in the oil business and with the Saudi Royals).

The report POLITICS OF OIL, released on July 15, 2004, is an international investigation of one of the world's richest industries and how it influences government and public policy around the world.
The Center found that the industry has spent more than $440 million over the past six years on politicians, political parties, and lobbyists to protect its interests in Washington. The Center also lists among its key findings:
The industry has given more than $67 million in campaign contributions in federal elections since the 1998 election cycle, about a fifth of the amount it has spent on lobbying.
U.S.-based oil and gas companies have nearly 900 subsidiaries located in tax haven countries, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
Oil and gas companies overwhelmingly favored Republicans over Democrats in their campaign giving, the study found. Just over 73 percent of the industry's campaign contributions have gone to Republican candidates and organizations in 2004.

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Election 2004. Culture Wars | PBS

I checked the website for the Moyers show, NOW, which I just missed enroute home , to see what was on. I found this summary of the segment on Politics and Economy.

What is the matter with Kansas? In the eyes of Thomas Frank, it's "the same thing that's been the matter with America for so many years: the culture wars." In his book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS? HOW CONSERVATIVES WON THE HEART OF AMERICA, Frank argues that middle Americans, in response to cultural issues, have aligned themselves with conservative Republicans and as a result, have ended up voting against their own economic interests.

Sounds familiar. While unaware of the specifics which this book explores, the idea of conservative folks voting against their own economic interests is not a great surprise, so often so Church follk, full of the "press and PR releases" of the GOP, assimilate a platform that behind the scenes, is siphoning off a staggering amount of the taxpayer's money from the lower 99% of the country and depositing it directly in to the bank accounts of the top 1%. The gap between rich and poor continues to rise, and the middle class is contracting, as politics moves insidiously toward rule by the higest bidders. They get won over by pious talk that all too often and more often than not, is perfect cover to get away with hell. And hell is what it brings to the lower classes, and I pray not for the world (although acertain segment of it has started catching it from the good ol' USA.

The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - JFK Moment

The Command Post posts this JFK quote which was displayed on the board and played the audio in a darkened hall:

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoings of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Lawrence Lessig

Lessig:If you missed Barack Obama tonight at the Democratic National Convention, you missed one of the greatest speeches of this campaign

MSNBC has the video

This guy, Barack Obama, is an awesome speaker. I had never heard of him. I am impressed. I almost wish HE were the candidate now, but he will be a tremendous boost to the Dems if not only in Illinois. Get him on the campaign trail. I'm looking for a streaming video somewhere so I can see that again. But let me tell you this: If he were the Democatic candidate, and the Republicans saw him up there accepting the nomination and speaking like that, they'd be shaking in the ir boots, cause he is good. Text of his speech at his Weblog/blog site

USATODAY.com - Blogs, journalism: Different factions of the write wing

USAToday: In the blogging world, anyone producing an online diary or Web site that collects commentary from around the Internet is supposed to let everyone know his or her politics. The theory: Web surfers need to know bloggers' biases to understand their motivations. Presenting both sides of an issue in the interest of fairness isn't required.
"Objectivity is a worthwhile objective, but it needs to be recognized that it can't be reached," Weinberger said.

The quip about bloggers " [are] supposed to let everyone know his or her politics" reveals something that the USAToday journalist apparently doesn't recognize, but most blogers do: That the separation is often extremely blurry; and the journalist himself later appended:
Mears, the old-school wire service writer, said after the breakfast that he agrees "no one can be totally objective."
"But that doesn't mean you can't take your personal opinion out of a story," he said. "This is all a testament what a different world the other bloggers are in from me."

Well, make that 'clarify' instead of append; he basically still failed to separate the WAY a story is reported from the presumptions of the writer. But, the REFRESHING thing I find in bloggers is that I WANT to find people who are CONCERNED about the same things I am; I want to get additional stories to take to the table in future oppotunities to state my case(s).

But, in the case of THIS presidential race, I cannot concede that this is a matter of opinion. There is right and there is wrong; there is honesty and integrity and there is lying and duplicity; there is trust and there is betrayal; and I am not going to grant the rabid Bush supporter (or any Bush supporter) the "benefit of the doubt", because it's pretty clear they don't WANT to see the truth, and will allow themselves to believe what the Bush administration and their compromising , America-idolatarizing Religious Leaders are telling them. The people who say that Bush is the "CHristian Choice" have settled for an ethical dimension of the world that is completely dimensionless, and shoves aside the lion's share of social issues for a select , narrowly defined few of those issues.

Daily Kos || Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

Kos says: Exhibit A why bbloggers won't be giving any hall speeches at future conventions.

My thoughts exactly (see my posts over the past month, since a discussion/debate/opposing-rants I had with a couple of people over the 4th)

Carter carried a message of "regain the trust" and "answer the call"; emphasizing "readiness" over pre-emptive, irreponsibility. Carter , for me, and as a Christian, I thought was the most Christian president we ever had. He was not a Washington insider, and not a rich man, unlike others since. His life since his presidency has been , fairly clearly, one of much more effective leadership (not because he streseed different things, but because he didn't have to fight the machine.

His work with the Habitat for Humanity, his Peace Negotiations have earned him a high honor (the Nobel Peace Prize). The economy may have sucked when he was President, but he was president for 4 years. Things were happening that led to that. I'm not suggesting he was a brilliant economist (but I trust that he wasn't selling out the rank and file of Americans to placate the rich.....Bush is quickly destroying surplus ---and he was well on his way prior to 9/11......

The big "stick" Carter carried was actually several "sticks" (jabs) at Bush...everyone knew what he was talking about. The thing is, when a preidency is so obviously decetful, duplicitious, and greedy, a call to the BASIC values of trust are a direct condemnation, so many are the trangressions of that trust by the Bush administration (and for the "Churches" that uphold this administration as the "Christian choice", they have been led deeply astray.....that "partisanship" comes from the Gospel, if you read and accept its message at face value)

Carter is now being interviwed , and has just made reference to the intention of the Bush administration to find some excuse to invade Iraq....confirming and recognizing the existence of documents like Rebuilding America's Defenses, which I mentioned yesterday, and several months ago, back when Iraq was first invaded.

I was proud of former President Carter.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Rebounding From 2000, Gore Urges Bush's Defeat

NYTimes quoting Gore: "I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third-party candidate in 2000," he said. "I urge you to ask yourselves this question : Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?"
Mr. Gore asserted that Mr. Bush has broken faith with his supposedly conservative principles by running up huge deficits, that the president has allowed the environment to be ravaged by polluters, and that he has allowed basic civil liberties to be eroded in the name of a reckless war abroad that has diverted resources from the struggle against the real enemy, Al Qaeda.
"No challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq," Mr. Gore said. "Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the administration has gotten us into very serious trouble? Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?"

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Rebounding From 2000, Gore Urges Bush's Defeat

From the NY Times: Mr. Gore has been increasingly critical of the president recently, and his speech seemed not entirely in keeping with the Democrats' strategy of building up Senator John Kerry rather than denigrating George W. Bush. Mr. Gore said Mr. Bush had divided the country, not united it, as he promised in 2000. "Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?" the former vice president asked, according to a prepared text. "Or do those words now ring hollow?"

When I heard that the message to the convention was "tone down the attacks", I wondered whether or not this is the best course. It depends on the nature of the criticisms. It seems to me that the "undecided" may be among the ones who can be outraged, and are looking for some backbone.

The level of corruption and deceit in this adminitration makes it almost a sin to keep these concerns to ourself. If it was thought that Gore broke the rules, then good for him.

I just heard a guy on PBS say thatr Gore and Carter "realize" the need to appeal to the undecided and will do this "for the team". Again, I hear an awaful lot of outrage; what are these people going to think of a candidate who shows no outrage?

I hate to say it, also ....but I am not convinced that "talking about the positives of Kerry is a strionger appeal thanb talking about the concerns that the Bush administration's actions have caused.

Jimmy Carter is about to step up......

Wired News: Unleashing the Web Police

Consistent with his administration's standards, Bush's blog permits no public comment (from Waldo Jaquith)

Typical and entirely predictable about the Bush administration. Thelight of day is the last thing they want.

I started it a few nights ago, as I waited for Janet to finish some other task, before we started watching "Outfoxed" and now I have picked it up again to read before I go to sleep: Moyers On America As usual, Moyers speaks/writes with eloquent and stirring imagery, and love for democracy, for which is he is understandably concerned today.

via MIke James: Just a Bump in the Beltway: Only Your Friends Will Tell You

I totally agree with this :
...if Osama bin Laden is still in a fit state to make political calculations, he must be backing an election victory for George Bush. The object of the terrorist is often to reveal the "true" repressive character of the state against which the terror is directed, and thus win further support for the terrorists' cause. If the United States had just acted in Afghanistan, and then concentrated on hoovering-up the remains of al-Qaida, the United States might clearly be winning the war on terror today. But, as bin Laden must have hoped, the Bush administration overreacted, and thus provided, in Iraq and Guantánamo, recruiting sergeants for al-Qaida of which Osama could only dream
from Timothy Ash of the Guardian via Mike James' Tread Lightly

The previous post expressed quite a bit of condemnation. And I feel justified in that, except that I also know that this is not the kind of energy that leads to anything good if positive action does not result. Let the reactions and the things that offend our sensibilities and our spirits move us toward a call. This was the message of the Dean campaign as well. A Call to Action. Many who see danger and corruption in this path the Administration has taken are also mobilizing. It is a time where the Church can proclaim a different message. (see Recovering a hijacked faith, by Jim Wallis of Sojourners at Boston.com). There are numerous Church leaders and Church bodies who are sounding concern nad beckoning their people to Jesus' example.

I keep returning to how the Church of the Saviour has gotten it right, and have, for over 50 years, carried out amazing missions in the heart of Washington, DC, and have been helping other Churches all over our country discover some of the things they have discovered about what it means to be Church. Their Potters House mission, a coffeehouse in Adams Morgan, is a good fit for imagining a model that could expand online, and connect Church people for the purpose of finding fellowship around a sense of shared call to the mission to which Christ is calling them. The Church of the Saviour already knows that part of the Church needs to be in the halls of power, speaking the truth. That message needs to reach more people, and so be able to build a community of "Meetups".

The Servant Leadership School they run just down the street from the Potter's House, whose "student body" often adjounrs to the Potters' House to continue the conversations begun in class, is co-directed by Ray McGovern, who left the CIA not too long ago, and gave Sojourners an interview this past year (Nov-Dec 2003 issue)

Trippi's book got the wheels going in my thoughts about the value of a grassroots effort to "Take Back the Church" just as the Dean Campaign invokes "Take Back America". The journeys of American politics and American Christianity run parallel in this perception amongst their grassroots and progressive communities that their deepest ideals are being hijacked in front of them.

This is not that new for me, or other "old people" like me , remembering how it was at the same time that the Reagan years and the Religous Right arose at the same time in 1980, and the Southern Baptist fundamentalist revolt, spearheaded by Paige Patterson and Judge Pressler staged a "liberal scare" campaign and took control of the Southern Baptist Leadership. That was more of an ideological battle, but it certainly had its association and complicity and "approval of" the Reagan philosophy, with its secret wars and behind the scenes mapipulations and scandals , trading arms for hostages, backing sadistic murdering Contra rebels against what was seen as a Communist threat in the Sandinista government. That secret and decptive war , that resulted in Sanctuary trials charging Church leaders with illegally aiding aliens from Central America, who fled the violence which the United States government denied existed. It was in those years that I first read and listened to Sojourners after hearing Jim Wallis speak as he visited Arizona where I happen to be living for about 9 months.

As I listened to people working in the Human Services in Phoenix, jsut a few short years after leaving Seminary in 1981, I learned of the abandonement of vital services through budget cuts of the Reagan administration (which I heard warnings about those cuts to expect as forthcoming from the Reagan administration), and of the secret covert actions taken in El Salvador. Wallis later was to write a book called "Who Speaks For God?" , which was one of the few vocal evangelicals with social conscience that weas calling for attention to the diverse voices in American Christianity rather than lumping all Christians into the "Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson" mode, which was becoming almost automatically aligned with the Republican party.

Weblosky quotes a NYTimes article by Robert BoyntonWe're going to be Outfoxed

I was particularly amused (not really)by this :
A large portion of the film's $300,000 budget came in the form of contributions in the range of $80,000 from both MoveOn and the Center for American Progress, the liberal policy organization founded by John Podesta, the former chief of staff for Bill Clinton; Greenwald, who is not looking to earn any money from the project, provided the rest.

Well, obviously, that's code to a conservative readership that entirely justifies dismissing the whole thing. With names like "Center for American Progress", that's gotta be liberal, huh? To take the stance that a critical eye toward someting in the mainstram media, particularly the "Fair and Balanced" , "No-spin" Fox News is enough to deserve the lable of "liberal" and "hopelessly liberal".

Dave Winer points to: NPR : RSS Feeds

Weblogsky: Through the Stained Glass: Religion and the Media
Weblosky announces something that makes me wish I was in Texas. I just finished House of Bush , House of Saud, and am in a bit of a depressed , anxious state about the "leadership" of this country, and the blindness of the Church loeadership who give their blessings to the path they (the present leadership, the CARBS - Chaney, Ashcroft, Rumsfield, and Bush -- and with Rove and Baker thrown in there, not two of the least significant people in the administration) have chosen. I also see that James Mooore, author of "Bush's Brain" (about Karl Rove) is there at the event. I saw that book for the first time last night. I had begun to hear about Rove in detail when PBS did the documentary on Bush's religioous conversion and garnering support from the Religious Right. That guy is scary.

I see that one of the comments for Weblosky's post mentions Faithful America, which is something I am looking for in my quest for a community of faith here in the Nashville area. I have longed for over 25 years now to find a Church that copmes anywhere close to being a "Church of the Saviour", and have been largely frustrated. In fact, the online world has been more of a communty in that regard, through groups like Sojourners and the like.

The description of the workshops:
As the political impact of religion grows, religious perspectives grounded in compassion are losing ground to extremist voices like the fundamentalist Christian right. Religion and the Media will equip you with practical, hands-on tools to expose this bias, interpret coverage and impact the media

From Daily KOS:
Terrorism Increases Under Bush:
will Armitage call a new press conference to announce that "you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are losing the fight" against global terrorism?

Nope. They'll just let that be. Lie, later admit it, but NEVER let the public that you just deliberately deceived know that you did so. He'll let that sit out there and have its desired effect, while admitting (perhaps) , when in lower profile situations, that a mistake was made. Such is the way with irresponsible and manipulative media.

I read the first 50 pages last night of ">House of Bush, House of Saud, which thus far, has been a pretty fascinating history. Some, I'm sure would call it fiction or partisan history, but basically it's been tracing the history of some relationships between the elder Bush , his "texas friends" , James Bath, Salem Bin Laden (elder brother of Osama) , and Khalid bin Mahfouz, and GW plus James Bakker. Dick Cheney has not yet entered the narrative.

The things that strike me thus far: For all the Republican smear campaign against Kerry for his "elitism", the Bush family is steeped in it. The elder Bush is the son of Prescott Bush (big banker in the Northeast) , and GW attended Yale as the son of an "elite family", which they raz Kerry for his "elite education".

The other thing is how the Rep. Campaign makes a huge deal out of Saddam's use of biological weapons, which were supplied by the United States, and the US continued to support and aid Iraq all the while Iraq was using these biological weapons.

I don't have a good category for "Media Studies". Janet
and I watched the "OUtfoxed" DVD last night, and far from being a "left wing wacko conspiracy video" like the Right accuses it of being; I found it to simply be a revealing media study. As the Right usually does when its darker underside is shown for what it is, they rant about "the left". Having donea great deal of Media Study in the MARC program at United Theological Seminary in 1990-91 (Masters of Arts in Religous Communication), this was a revealing and thorough study. My fellow MARC students and I were somewhat concerned about how the Media waved the flag in the Gulf War that was in the process of happening. That "liberal media". I often doubted it , and was convinced otherwise as gthe Gulf War started and continued and eneded.

I also picked up a book "What Liberal Media" (by Eric Alterman), who was on the video). NO, I think the media is money driven, much in the way that politics is. It's about audience, and about advertising, and increasingly about ideology. The Fox network became quite noticable to me as a :"Republican Pundit Central" during the 2000 elections, when I was watching quite a bit of CNN, MSNBC, the 3 major networks, and Fox. Conservative/Republican acquaintances of mine seem disgusted with the suggestion that Fox news is anything but what they (Fox) say they are: Fair and Balanced. Conservatives are thrilled with this idea: that here is a "balanced" , "objective" coverage that gives them just what theywant, and comapres themselves favorably and ioverwhelmingly stronger than the "liberals".

I was a bit disgusted with the way they called the Fox News "token liberal" guy as a "Squirly-looking guy", wondering what that guy will feel when he hears of that. That's a vote of condfidence from a fellow progressive/liberal. other than that, the conservative and obnoxious conservative pundits are clearly the "strong" characters (like Mr. O'Reilly, who denied the accusation that he tells people to "Shut up", which was dutifully followed up by about 20 different clips of him doing just that. This kind of overbearing , obnoxious arrogance seems to fulfill the deep longing of the conservatives who have wanted to say this to whomever they considered their "number one enemy liberal".

I bought the DVD at Borders. It's the numbner one selling DVD at Amazon.com. The producer/director has promoted the use of "home meetings" to view the DVD in groups which can then talk about things to do in response to this, even perhaps including help defeat the "Fox hero" and "ultimate authority", the Bush administration. I much prefer the "Dean for America" philosophy (not to mention the policies to balance and begin to undo and address the problems we now have , no small thanks due to the ultimatye in arrogant US "regimes".

Al wonders why they've been so ineffective at "winning/reaching" the homesexual:

Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 5:11].

Is he serious? When your Church (the Southern Baptist Church) spews hatred and bigotry all over televison and opposes every tendency toward tolerance of gays, you expect some lipservice to "love" to actually be believed? Secondly Al, do you really expect that 99.9% of Homosexuals are going to come within a continent of your brand of theology whose sole pupose often seems to be the blocking of all hints at granting any kind of rights to the homosexual, and a deep chasm where social awareness should be, that is rampant in the Religious Right, not to mention actual sociological insight or an ability to step outside ones' own group, ethicity, social class, and you name it.

Mohler drones on about Issues of Doctrine and Homosexuality as a Danger to "Marriage in America". In the process, he slips further and further into irrelevance, in this day when the number one pressing issues on the minds of many Christians have to do with the war on Iraq and the economy. Mohler solidifies the notion in many "liberals" minds that Christianity, for most people, is rendering them totially clueless about real life (and they are right , as long as they use the qualifier "most Christians". But the fact that they ARE accurate in saying MOST is a source of great embarassment to me.

In talking about homeosexuality issues, Mohler sounds the warning of "the church changes its message meeting modern demands", all the while, in his total avoidnace of war issues, he is a living illustration of how easily one (and large groups of Churches) can totally capitulate to the culture around them (and join in the mass deception about the effectiveness, morality, and 'justness' of war, while screaming about issues that are far less daunting, and as usual, having to do with some matter of deep "disgust" with some "depravity" or "liberal thought. The preoccupation with "sex sin" has already driven secular and non-obsessed Christians to disown the Religious Right. IN the best cases, Christians flee the oppressive spiritual environments where these emphases are inflicted, but usually due to matters totally unrelated to "prudism", but due to a total irrelevance of that theology to everyday life.

Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

Yeah, Al, and it is the duty of "Progressive Christians" to speak the truth to power, which includes leaders like you; leaders who think it fine to back a candidate solely on piety rather than actual policy; they back Republicans who "talk the talk" and yet the actual results are short of their expectations (or in many cases, the facts of failure are totally irrelvant to them; that abortion rates went DOWN under Clinton is NEVER heard in those circles. It's the "words" thatcount; and this playes out in their theological talk as well. It's the ideology that seems tobe the highest litmus test of the Religious Right; higer than alleginace to Christ (seen in how committed Christians can be demonized and "paganized" by the fact that they differ on key social issues from the "issues scorecards" that the Religious Right uses to manipulate their constituents.

At least for another 3 and a half months, till the first and largely important step of removing from the whitehouse the best friend that the rich elite and the corporations and the oil comapnies ever had there (heck, he IS one of the oil coppanies, and supported in a BIG , HUGE MOnster way by Kenneth Lay).

I finished Trippi's book tonight, (The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised)
and he ended it in the final couple chapters with encouragement for the feelings I had last night, as I past the half way mark in his book, that the spirit of the Dean campaign would reconvene around getting Bush out of Washington, and then commnece to getting Washington further away from the grubby paws of those oil companies and corporations that are all too giddy about rolling back the environmental reforms of the past 30 years and proceeding with their "the future be damned-- make our fortune now---(and while we're at it--- our children be damned too, for they will pay for it) And what's so entirely sickening about it , is that the Religious Right is selling its Christian soul for the same mess of pottage; and finding ways to ignore the clear messages of their scriptures in the process (so what else is new, except that money seems to be getting deeper and darker in its power over government--- and so Trippi and Dean and millions of Americans are saying "What is going on? We want our country back!"

Trippi's book was , and is, invigorating, and postive, and exciting in what it points to, and skillful and funny and inspiring in how it does so. Thanks so much , Joe!

Did some more reading last night and today, and I'm halfway through, and still reccommending Joe Trippi's book The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised.

I found myself feeling the pain all over again of having Dean's campaign get buried, and it's really because people "don't get it" about politics, and about the power of the Internet medium to carry community vibes in dramatic and powerful fashion. The Internet is not community, but a "Community of Communities", and a "channel" and "enabler" of community. It doesn't CREATE it, unless you consider how many "communities" are spawned out of clusters of people who wind up in the same "blog circle" or forum, or "meetup".

I was thinking of how big it could be to get another Dean-like campaign going on the Kerry bandwagon (which for many, is more about getting Bush out than getting Kerry in--- maybe that's a terribly cynical sounding thing, but the issues at stake are nothing less than ethics in several key areas, and how we need to get rid of this buffoon who knows nothing of the environment, of Christian socail ethics, of the economy, or of scruples in his blatant selling of political favors to people likle "Kenny Boy" Lay. America needs a "regime change" and quick. Another four years wil certainly carry us to unholy levels of national deficit, as Bush's buddies get rich on the things he's delivering to them. Isn't it enough that Bush's biggest financial supporter is a criminal? Apparently not. The Bush propaganda machine keeps rolling , with the help of the Religious Right, who are shoving into the far reaches of unconsiousness the Biblical message for an "American Way of Life" that our children and grand children will have to pay for. Gee, am I anti-Bush? You betcha.

I picked up "The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised" last night, and haven't been able to put it down (except to laugh at several and various places aloong those first 40 pages I've read so far...the guy is funny too). I can sasy with complete confidence that the book is a gem after getting only 20% of the way through it (I had to go to sleep after I started it, to get up and go to work, but I made it a point to stop at the coffeeshop today on the way home and get a Vanilla Latte and sit down with it before I came home for dinner).

Trippi resonates with me, and we seem to have a lot in common (Born in 1956, like Baseball, media, politics, and the Internet). His insights seem to be plentiful as well. His stories of grassroots campaigns are captivating. And , did I say he's hilarious? Yeah, I think I did.

There will be lots of blogging material here over the next few days. Still makes me mad how as soon as Dean became the front runner and the media turned full gaze on him, they also did a number on him. It waan't just a bunch of geeks who thought it was cool that they used the Internet and Weblogs, but a fired up constituency who found a no-bull campaign where it was the people and the conversation that mattered. Trippi's opening chapter included a touching moment when Dean told him that he never expected it to get "that far" (December 2003). Tripp observed then and now that it happened just becuase it wasn't about Dean, but about the people. Sounds sappy into today's ullta-cynical political environment (and one is cynical for good reason, mind you.....and herein lies the point). The point being, that campaigns like Dean's awakened an awful lot of hope in the political process. Other campaigns woudl do well to learn from what brought them out of "nowhere" (the answer is: The People ---- sadly, the People are indeed "nowhere" in most campaigns, amidst all the lipservice to "the People", they are , in most cases, listened to only in the context of "representative samples" and polls. It is a dumb-down game with the intent of finding that "magical middleground" that contributes to the divorce of politicians from thew body politic.

Of course, knowing me, you know where I;m headed with this don't you? Yep, it's excatly the kind of thing that kills Churches; this "not listening to people" thing; this "not letting the conversation grow"; it's the great omission of the stories of people's lives. And like it makes JOe Trippi sick to see what politics has become (and it does me , too) it makes me sick that Churches seek audience rather than be attentive to the mission it was given; to be a "community of God's people" and dedicated to the building of the Body of Christ.

Sivin Kit's Garden: Perspectives on Servant leadership

Good question asked on Susan Mernit's Blog (courtesy Doc's weblog)

Why doesn't one of the larger networks and their local affiliates work with a large blogging service and their photo/mobblogging capabilities to create local citizen/journal reporters who can moblog local campaign and election events and do man on the street interviews?

Of course, these kinds of things make an automatic link in my brain to how this might apply to Churches. And just as it would benefit and extend coverage and make super-current that coverage, the same could be true for Churches, with updates by pastors, members, group leaders/facilitators, and even denominational leaders via syndications on local Church blogs, or direct RSS subscriptions on the district/regional or denominational or national level.

My thought exactly, but on the "may or may not be true" part, I myself am left wondering . The very prescence or fact of this, and the fact, as this writer puts it, that we didn't know about this, raises suspicion.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Moore's Public Service

Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

About The Revolution
I used an MT bookmarklet to blog this link to the Joe Trippi book (Howard Dean's Internet Campaign guru)

My previous post began with a bit of a confession of a struggle and a self-perception about how I have increasinglyu felt "cut off" and less "connected" to people as I have known myself to have been in the past. I had originally titled that post "Closed up out of fear or Cynicism". I feel myself becoming bitter about the length of time it has taken for a Church to HEAR about the call that I have sensed, even though I have written about it and told people (almost pleaded with people) to visti my weblog and read about it, and have done the best I can to verbalize it, there just seems to continue to be a general "blank stare", and sometimes open opposition to what I am suggeting about the Web as not only an INFORMATION channel, but a channel for COMMUNITY and for FORMATION.

And so when pastors express open hostility to the existence of conversation that they are not "controlling", and opposing the idea of the Web as a vehicle for commuity, and this in the obvious refutation of what I have described as a sense of call in my life, I think my reaction is understandable, although not what I believe that God intends for me to do with that experience of "rejection". I have not given it up by any stretch, but I sense that a "shell" has hardened around my self, so that these envisionings do not naturally flow as they have previously, or should be now.

I may seem to be, to those around me, somewhat lacking in "outgoing" qualities, and then, when I'm not, I often feel I am perceived as "Nerdy"; getting all juiced about something that is not clicking at the same pitch and energy as it is within the other person. That is particularly true when it comes to some of my thoughts about the Church and its use of the Web and related technologies. I am becoming increasingly hopeful that my present job will be moving into an implementing stage of some of this in the very near future. But in the meantime, I long to find a Church community that not only sees the potentail in this, but seeks a way to incorporate it as mission. I deeply believe that it is a vital needed structure for thw Church to implement for the sake of communicating the vast range of personal thoughts, individual faith stories, descriptions of various outposts in one's journey, and collaborative technologies that help us to keep in touch more often and more fully.

Now I do not believe that this can be done without some physical community intentions and/or copmponent to it. But this also not to say that it has to START with a physical communityh. I belive that physical communities; face-to-face (ftf) communities can develop as a result of various folks discovering local people resources that they were not aware of, because they just happen to miss the various traditonal communications that were inviting them to participate. Also, an existing ftf community can greatly expand the reach of the stories of its participants via the use of Web trchnologies such as blogs, forums, data-driven calendars and resource lists, etc.

I have grown into the "Church and the Web" as mission as I have learned the technologies, experienced the power of the "VIrtual Community", and envisioned the possibilities to "distribute" more widely the experience of sharing faith stories, sense of call, personal struggles, corporate experience (the experience of people as a community and the journey to find corporate expression as a body). The Church of the Saviour "reached out" with their stories via the pen of Elizabeth O'Connor's books that related the history and journey of The Church of the Saviour. And this was a traditional print-based outreach. But it reached many in far away places, and was powerful enough to instill in readers the urge and calling to pilgrimage to Washington DC and see this thing. The Web, and Weblogs, and forums, and portable technologies (ala Smart Mobs) hold so much possibility; the Church of the Saviour could increase its reach dramatically, and also "resource" its existing "member base" and "intern base" in dramtic fashion. Their Servant Leadership School has been providign resources of classic stature for years; they need to provide and encourage Web-based communities that also stress implementation at the local level. Their list of resources alone is invaluable and a Must-have for today's Church. Today's Church needs the prophetic insight and witness of this community that has gtten it right to a degree that far outdistances the efforts (or lack thereof) of most of Christendom. If that sounds a little strong, be aware that everybody I know who has been touched by this community is keenly aware of how the Church in general is sorely lacking in almost every area. But let is also be known that I also believe that this model is available to those communities who make a commitment to be a "New Community", and listen and explore the urgings of the prescence of God that calls; The Church of the Saviour began with Call, and all its missions begin with Call.

Somehow, there is a place for Web Ministry; there are needed elements where Web technologies can provide a container and a structure that can lead to connected-ness of story, connectedness of resources, and connectedness of Call; so that these things can be shared to the extent they were intended, and provide another way of telling the story of the "things which we have seen and heard and experienced".

I categorize this post under Church of the Saviour becuase it was in a curriculum we used in a "Servant Leadership School" patterned after that one started by the Church of the Saviour, that I first read a Walter Wink book, even though I had heard of him and seen quotes and heard of his anlaysis in this "Powers" series, as well as in Sojourners magazine. This came from one of the Amazon reviews:

Wink argues that humans live under "domination systems"--the "powers and principalities that be." These are the structural and ideological institutions that manipulate our minds, lives, and activities, reduce our freedom, and retard our flourishing. As Christians, we're called to resist them without buying into the "myth of redemptive violence"--the centuries' old chestnut that violence is the only kind of force that works, and that because it works it justifies itself. Jesus showed an alternative way--the path of nonviolent resistance.

More in a bit

Cable outage is over (all morning , finally back on at around 1pm)

IN my periodic sweep of the web for the latest on the Church of the Saviour or ministries in which they are involved, This article -- the title of this post, by Ray McGovern was on the list. McGovern is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry inspired by the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. His first career of 27 years as a CIA analyst taught him something of empire.

The best quote from the article:
You have to help good people see how they have let their institutions do their sinning for them

The Church of the Saviour in Washington DC , to which I referred in the previosu post below, has, for over 56 years (or maybe it’s 57 now) lived on the boundaries of both Inward and Outward Journeys (the Journey Inward. Journey Outward schema is the title of a book penned by Elizabeth O’Connor that is the second installment of a history of the Beginnings of the Church of the Saviour, and the birth and evolution of their theology of Church). Their theology of Church has influenced me for the better part of 27 years, since the time I picked up Call To Commitment (the first installment if that COS history) at the recommendation of a group of guys in my youth group (with whom all kept in touch after we were out of high school, and technically not “youth” anymore, but still very active in the youth program). That was the summer of 1976, and I followed that reading with the sequel, Journey Inward , Journey Outward), and the third installment, The New Community. Years later, and having visited COS three times, and continuing to read other books by O’Connor and the pastor, Gordon Cosby, I find it increasingly hard to stomach what passes for Church --- the disturbing “lack of theological talk” even at Church, except that which comes “down from the pulpit” (the top-down dissemination of messages and guidelines from the top, instead of the participatory, mutual accountability to know the details of the journeys of one another.)

On a subject so often raised by Jesus himself (the temptations of money; the warning that money corrupts; that money endangers one’s spiritual life; the Religious Right deletes these concerns from their “canon of ethics”. It simply doesn’t wash in a system allied with the interests, ultimately, of the most rich. Most of the adherents of the Religious Right aren’t among its beneficiaries. They’re told that they are; they feel that they are benefiting from putting into power those who have “promised” to make into law or to “embody” in law what they feel are their deepest concerns. But these , too, are mepty promises, because the ultimate allegiance is to MONEY.

And so the Religious Right advances a theology that stresses codification; in the place of “conversation” they install codification. It’s a package deal , they seem to imply, to the extent that rarely does anyone question who people in Church vote for. It's "obvious" to all who have become convinced by the PR machine that the "republicans" are the obvious choice. And why is this? Because they say so. They talk the talk. And Church people are swayed by testimony, and usually blind to corporate evil (what I belive the Bible refers to as "Principalities and Powers", which Walter Wink writes about in his Series of books on these "powers" (ie. Engaging the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers). The dark power that is unleashed in structural evil is of the most far-reaching kind, becuase it is here where the most destructive evil can happen, and keep happening becuase of the inabbility of any one group of people or individuals to take responsibility for it. But it exists. With all my being I know it does. I see it happening and dividing the Church, and divide it does, since both sides believe that the very nature of their faith is at stake. Tony Campolo speaks of this "structural evil" in many of his books and speeches, but he did so at length in his latest, to which I referred last weekend just after I bought it: "Speaking My Mind". I am so thankful for people like Campolo who , despite his protestations, are truly prophetic minds.

By default, the Religious Right eschews conversation in favor of adhering to codification; indeed, to affirm the conversation they must allow their assumptions to be challenged; and they won't have this.

The swing toward “Republican” preferences in “Church –goers” is staggering; and disturbing to those whose theology recognizes the obvious abnd glaring “preferential options for the poor” throughout the Old and New Testaments. Jim Wallis has made reference many times to the “American Bible”, revealing glaring holes throughout the book where passages that express this “option” are cut out.

Such is the potential that could be realized by the Church, in harvesting this to support and grow their community. In typical churches, the content flows “from above”; the “connections” that are “recommended” are from a position of “authority” as filtered through the singular experience of the pastor.

Back to the rant that drove me to this conversation. In the fundamentalist world, the “conversation” is feared. The authority risks too much “assimilation” and challenge from the wider, broader experience of “alternatives” which are eye-opening in such a way to cast a host of questions on the heretofore limited system , based on “limited” and “filtered” news, all “postured” and “tweaked” with the editing of “public relations” pens and “dispersed down to the public. It’s the Music Man mentality, “trouble in RiverCity” that rhymes with “school” and that means “pool”; whipping up fears about consequences based on faulty sociology (or basically NO sociology, since the ability or expectation of the “subjects” in an authoritarian system to “observe” the behavior of their “leaders” is basically sidelined.)

I feel a bit “detached” right now, not because I have to have my “techno-fix”, but because the “connectivity” I sense I am missing is to the conversation I have with these “Feeds” and the emails, to people with whom I accustomed to communicating via these “electronic pathways”. If there were a physical meeting place with all of the elements I seek and find online, then I would take the trouble to get cleaned up and travel to that place. But there is not such a physical place. I would that God would lead me to something of a place that I would call a Church home, but I have not yet found such a place, and so , for me, online is the closest thing. There are real people, real ideas, and real comradeship in our writing and dialoging about the things we all care about; about the seeking and experiencing of human communityu; of taking part in the “conversation” (there’s that Cluetrain concept again).

The cable is out, which means the broadband is out, and of all days to be out, on a Saturday, when I can do my “morning paper” routine of checking email, reading my RSS feeds, and doing a little writing. I read a couple of articles in WIRED in the lates issue, Human Being 2.0, about the movie I, Robot. One of the articles was about Asimov, and th other an interview with Will Smith about his role in the movie. Made me want to see it. Maybe later today.

I was thinking , of course, about the kind of thinking that is inherent in all these discussions (except for the ones who agree with my notion that you just can’t really duplicate the human), which is the idea that there is some way to “create a being”. This is where my philosophy and theology of “life” sets limits. One may be able to “mimic” life behavior, but when push comes to shove, one will end up alone with such a “being”. Thus far, these “artificial beings” can only do what they’re told.

UMC article on Faith and Politics

Cites several divergent viewpoints on the impact and role of faith in politics. This one , from a conservative Republican from Alabama, is puzzling:

"If the Bible is used to try and tell someone they are wrong, that’s not what it’s intended to do," says Rep. Spencer Bachus, a conservative Alabama Republican and Baptist.

A Baptist, saying that the Bible should not be used to tell someone they are wrong? Something's off kilter here. Of course, this individual is probably offended that OTHERS are telling the president that HE is wrong to wage pre-emptive war, wrong to run rough-shod over the environment, and over the poor, and over the trust of the American people.

I also like the quotes from George McGovern....

In a sojo.net article today, Wallis describes a debate he had with Jerry Falwell, where Falwell told Wallis he was "about as evangelical as an oak tree" (whatever that's supposed to mean). For one, Jerry, you CERTAINLY don't have a corner on the "evangelical market"; and your smug know-it-all attitude certainly puts YOU in the category of "as evangelical as an oak tree", and the oak tree might even outrank you, since it is inncocent and majestic, and keeps its mouth shut, since it doesn't have one. But the kicker here is Falwell's sense of ownership of evangelical. I've always described Falwell's ilk as fundamentalist, and evangelicals are further along the scale of balance and gospel integrity, and just plain obedience to the messages that ring out dominant in the gospel (such as those things Wallis talks about as morsl issues, in stark contrast to the fundamentalist fixation on sex to the exclusion of nearly all else.

The highlight quote:
I happen to think that both abortion and gay marriage are important issues, but they are not the only issues. Many Christians are getting tired of the tirades of the Jerry Falwells who repeatedly claim that all values issues have to do with sex and that every Christian must vote for their Republican friends. Family values are important to many Christians, but so are social values. And many Christians are pro-family without being anti-gay the way Falwell is. And many of us believe that a deep commitment to the sacredness of human life requires a consistent ethic of life, which also regards the destruction of war, the death penalty, and the scandal of global poverty as deeply moral concerns, not just abortion.

Thanks to Mike James for this link

THE QUOTE in this article, for me:
It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God.

and amen to this one:
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments.

Religious liberals conveniently force all evangelicals into their concept of fundamentalism, and then warn the nation of a horde of unwashed conservatives seeking to force an extreme vision on the nation. The scare tactics aren't working.

Unless you count how Mohler himself is wholly compliant in carrying out the campaign of absolute theological bigotry that led to the ouster of thousands of faithful Southern Baptists who have joined the ranks of the CBF or other denominations, due to the "fact" that these people resisted or criticized the direction these "fundamentalists" were taking the denomination.

Mohler reacts in typical fashion to the concerns voiced in the media about the religious right.

In, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong," Fitzgerald aims a broadside attack on the political involvement of conservative Christians. Fitzgerald, we might note, does not mince words. He identifies all evangelicals as fundamentalists, and charges that "belief in the inerrancy of Scripture saps God of majesty and mystery." Fitzgerald claims that his church takes the Bible "too seriously to read it literally," and argues that though "the Christian story speaks God's truth," this story is not to be limited to the Holy Scriptures. As he argues, "the doctrine of Biblical infallibility wants to trap the Divine inside texts that God's power ultimately tr