Thanks for the memories

Blogger broke the old template, so we now have a new one.

Thanks. I had nothing better to do tonight than hack html.

Bastards.

Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme

Joseph from MartiniRepublic's invitation to discuss the spiritual world recently led me to post about religion. As well, we saw interesting responses from RJ Eskow and Pamela at TheDemocraticDaily.

Followng in that proud tradition, I'm going to attempt, without a net, a multi-part mini-series about spiritual and religious issues facing the Left today.

Today, let's consider Leo Strauss.

Often both praised and reviled as the Capo to the Neo-Conservative movement, Strauss is indeed a complex figure. While teaching philosophy at the University of Chicago's Department of Poli Sci, he made many lofty pronouncements, and excited both admiration as well as revulsion in many who delved into his works. Think Noam Chomsky of the Right.

Many graduates of U of Chi made their way into public service, as well as prominence in conservative politics, among them John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Ahmed Chalabi (!) as well as authors Saul Bellow and Allen Bloom.

While reading Nicholas Xenos' "Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror" at www.logosjournal.com, we find more information.

Other devotees of Strauss include William Krystol, Nathan Tarcov, a University of Chicago professor and a former student of Strauss, and Carnes Lord, who was a member of the National Security Staff, and Paul Wolfowitz. Later on, William Kristol and Carnes Lord were part of Vice President Dan Quayle’s staff.

As Xenos continues:

Straussians have been around Washington for twenty years. In a sense, they invite the criticism of being a cult or a conspiracy by the networking that they do, by their purposive replication, and by the use of a certain kind of coded language. (For example, whenever Strauss talked about someone’s theory he referred to his “teaching,” and this is a term similarly deployed by all Straussians.) Strauss and his descendants use all kinds of stilted, oftentimes archaic language, and some of that language has found its way into the rhetoric of the so-called war on terror.

The most obvious place where one sees it is in the administration’s use of the term “regime.” Some people were surprised by what it turned out “regime change” meant, but one would not have been surprised if one were familiar with Leo Strauss’s writings or those of the Straussians. “Regime” is the term that Strauss used to translate the Greek politeia, an Aristotelian category, and Strauss understood it to mean—what it more or less does mean in Aristotle—the form of a city; that is, its essence as opposed to the unformed humans, the matter, that the city forms. Aristotle, in Book Three of the Politics, makes the case that there are different kinds of polities—democracies, aristocracies, and so on—and that in each case, if one changes into another one it changes essentially; it changes its form into something else. And the citizens are different, they are changed—the citizen of a democracy is not a citizen in an aristocracy—so it is a total transformation of the city’s essence, a formal transformation. Thus Strauss wrote that “a change of regime transforms a given city into another city,” into something totally different. So to talk about “regime change,” which was a relatively new term in the discourse of international relations, meant a total transformation of the model of the society in question rather than a simple change of government in the narrow sense. This has had immediate effects in the policy in Iraq.

Sounds about right. But let's look back into Strauss' history for some context. Xenos again:

He wrote a book on Spinoza published in 1930 and left Germany in 1932 on a Rockefeller Foundation grant for research on Thomas Hobbes in Paris and London. He was thus in Paris when the Nazis took power. However, Strauss should not be confused with the anti-Nazi refugees who soon arrived in the French capital, because at this time he was a committed anti-liberal, in the German sense of anti-liberal, which is to say, among other things, an anti-parliamentarian. Also in 1932, he wrote an extended review of a book by the German legal and political theorist Carl Schmitt entitled The Concept of the Political, in which Schmitt articulated his notion that the core of the political problem is the distinction between friends and enemies. Schmitt later became a member of the Nazi party and a leading figure in the main legal organization of the Third Reich. In Strauss’s review, he criticized Schmitt from the political right. He argued that “the critique introduced by Schmitt against liberalism can . . . be completed only if one succeeds in gaining a horizon beyond liberalism. In such a horizon Hobbes completed the foundation of liberalism. A radical critique of liberalism is thus possible only on the basis of an adequate understanding of Hobbes.”[ii] His point was that Schmitt was, in his criticisms of liberalism, working within the bounds of liberal society because liberalism had become so dominant that it was difficult see beyond it anymore, and it was thus necessary to go back to Hobbes to see what was there before. What was there before was a very strong sense of the absolute dichotomies of good and evil. For Strauss, Hobbes represents the foundation of liberalism and modernism in the claim that these notions of good and evil are nominalist; they simply do not exist in anything other than our judgment about them. So Strauss was suggesting that you had to go back before liberalism to reconnect with the sort of absolutist distinctions upon which Schmitt was attempting to ground the political.

. . .

Strauss wrote to Löwith in May 1933, five months after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor and a month after implementation of the first anti-Jewish legislation, that “Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us,” meaning Jews, “it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial [emphasis in original]—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity,” the mean nonentity being the Nazi party. In other words, he is attacking the Nazis from the right in this letter.

That's an especially detached and de-personalized assessment of the Nazi Party. I would conclude from that that Strauss had an established agenda, and found support wherever he could, damn the inconveniences.

Two months later, in July 1933, he wrote to Schmitt—he did not realize that Schmitt had joined the Nazi party, or seemed not to fully understand what the regime was about in terms of its anti-Semitism—asking for help in getting entrée to Charles Maurras, the French right-wing Catholic leader of the Action Française. What all of this suggests is that in the 1930s Strauss was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean “anti-liberal” today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism. Like Schmitt, what Strauss hated about liberalism, among other things, was its inability to make absolute judgments, its inability to take action. And, like Schmitt, he sought a way out in a kind of pre-liberal decisiveness. I would suggest that this description of fascist, authoritarian, imperial principles accurately describes the current imperial project of the United States. Because of this, examining the foundational elements of Strauss’s political theory helps us to see something important about our current situation, independently of any kind of Straussian direct influence, although there is certainly some of that.

Regarding his tenure at U of Chi, Francis Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law and graduate of U of Chi has this to say:

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli "Neoconservative" Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so. Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda . But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-cons in the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss, who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in their Department of Political Science. The best expose of Strauss's pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor Shadia B. Drury: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protege, co-author, and literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago's Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process by Chicago's Straussian cabal.

Chicago routinely trained me and numerous other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. The University of Chicago became the "brains" behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his "lawyers" at the Department of Injustice are members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka "Feddies"), which originated in part at the University of Chicago.

Although miseducated at Yale and Harvard Business School, the "Ivies" proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-cons and the Fundies contracted an "unholy alliance" in support of Bush Jr. across the board. For their own different reasons, both groups also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel's genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal. Strange bedfellows indeed.

. . .

It was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-cons who set up a separate "intelligence" unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and outright propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq's oil. To paraphrase something Machiavelli once advised his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived. As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago's pro-Israeli Neo-con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli's The Prince.

As for the University of Chicago overall, its Bible is Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind (1987). Of course Bloom was another protege of Strauss, as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his latest novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, formerly on the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom is still worshipped and his elitist screed against American higher-education still revered. In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom's protege Philip Gorman, and Strauss as Bloom's mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the eminence grise of the novel. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies.

As to Strauss' feeling about religion, my primary reason for writing this, we turn to Jim Lobe writing for Alternet:

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Aligned thus with Marx, at least in re: religion (Religion is the opiate of the masses), we understand Strauss as a devotee of Machiavelli. At a time when the Right is seeking domination of both US policy and World influence, it makes sense that Strauss' ideology would attract folks who believe these goals to be worthwhile.

Keep in mind that while the Radical Right pundits have made a talking point of the words "Liberal Elite," in Straussian philosophy it is a Right-wing elite who rule. Apologists for Strauss contend that he offers wisdom to all who chose to follow his path, and that no one is denied knowledge. Perhaps, but his contention still stands that, like "The Prince," a "wise" class will rule, not that the ruling class be wise. Big difference, in my opinion.

To be continued.

I'm walking on sunshine

Lefty Pam (stay tuned for more) says that Bush is probably crapping his pants withh joy over Hurricane Katrina, as he spends taxpayer money pimping Social Security destruction.

As long as Katrina is in the news, says Pam, we won't see anything on CNN about:

Rove

Plame

Iraq

Halliburton

DeLay

Intelligent Design

Rowe v. Wade

Voter Fraud

Missing white women

Good news for Bush.

Bastard.

marching as to war

The witty and erudite Joseph at Martini Republic (drinks are on us) suggested to some of the members of the Greater LA Bloggers Alliance (I made that name up) that we follow his lead and make a concerted effort to post about topics of religion and faith on Saturdays, and I think that's a grand idea.

Well, it's still Saturday night here, as anyone who knows my rules is aware, "It's still today until you go to bed. When you wake up it will be tomorrow."

When I wake up tomorrow, Sunday, I'll be afraid to find this from MainstreamBaptists.org:

Oklahoma is one of the few states where influential people have little fear that their credibility could be undermined by being openly identified with Rushdoony or with the Chalcedon Foundation that he started. I suspect that the Daily Oklahoman is the only major daily newspaper in the world to eulogize Rushdoony on its editorial page and State Representative Bill Graves of Oklahoma City is one of the few elected officials in the country who writes articles for the Chalcedon Report -- the Foundation’s monthly newsletter. Bill Graves has articles published in both the January and the March 2002 issues of the Chalcedon Report.

Openly identifying with Rushdoony and the Reconstructionist movement is problematic for people in the public eye because Rushdoony was an adamant opponent of the First Amendment to the constitution. His magnum opus, published in 1973, is an 800 page tome patterned after Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion that Rushdoony entitled The Institutes of Biblical Law. On page 294, Rushdoony gives an indication why he believes that the American system of pluralistic democracy is heresy. He wrote, “In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions.”

The writer, Dr. Bruce Prescott, of the Interfaith Alliance forum on Religious Extremism, goes on to say:

If Rushdoony and his disciples had their way, democracy would be abolished and a Christian theocracy would be established. A theocracy based on the Bible along the lines of John Cotton’s Massachusetts Bay Colony. Rushdoony wrote, “The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.” (p. 113) He also made it clear that he expects that force will be necessary to impose such order, “Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare.” (p. 93)

At its root, Reconstructionism is a militant Biblicism. In many ways, it is a revival of the holy war theology of the Hebrew Bible under the guise of Christianity. The chief difference being that Reconstructionists believe they have a mandate to claim more than the land of Palestine, they believe they are commanded to conquer the entire world and exercise “dominion” over all its peoples. That is why Reconstructionism is also known as “dominion theology.”

To a man, Reconstructionists believe that Biblical prophecies assure them that they will ultimately be victorious in the war they wage. This chief thing that distinguishes them from a lot of the conservative Christians who have been influenced by them is that they are not pessimistic about the possibility of men ushering in the millennial reign of Christ. A lot of conservative Christians are pre-millenialists. They think Jesus has to return to usher in the kingdom of God on earth. Reconstructionists are post-millenialists. They think Jesus expects them to usher in the kingdom of God before he returns and they expect to do it by force – by force of law and/or by force of arms.

This was found by my lovely wife Pam in a comment to a Huffpo article by Russell Shaw: What's Really Bothering Pat Robertson About Chavez.

I have some substantial experience with the evangelical right, from my days in Orange County, when I took care of technical issues for recording studios belonging to 2 of the largest of these organizations. How they went about running Christian record labels is another story, but I can state with certainty that these feelings are colse to the surface with many people, even those who seem calmer and more sane.

That the US would assume a theocratic government is a true dream of many of these folks. They prefess to love the Original Intent of the framers of the Constitution, but never mind, Jefferson's "Separation" seems inconvenient. And yet the Dominionist ideology is riddled with inconsistencies.

When quoting scripture to support Radical Right positions on poverty (7Jesus replied, "Leave her alone. She did it in preparation for my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but I will not be here with you much longer."), they seem to believe in a laissez faire attitude, in other words, that which is ordained will be.

And yet regarding other issues they preach that zealous activism is needed. On the one hand" "Unto Caeser what is Caesar's", on the other hand:

The laws that Reconstructionists want to enforce are those of Ancient Israel. They believe that the Mosaic law is God’s blueprint for all societies. Transported to the context of twenty-first century America, they see themselves as “Christian Libertarians.” Stripped to its barest essentials, here is their blueprint for America. Their ultimate goal is to make the U.S. Constitution conform to a strict, literal interpretation of Biblical law. To do that involves a series of legal and social reforms that will move society toward their goal. 1) Make the ten commandments the law of the land, 2) Reduce the role of government to the defense of property rights, 3) Require “tithes” to ecclesiastical agencies to provide welfare services, 4) Close prisons – reinstitute slavery as a form of punishment and require capital punishment for all of ancient Israel’s capital offenses – including apostacy, blasphemy, incorrigibility in children, murder, rape, Sabbath breaking, sodomy, and witchcraft, 5) Close public schools – make parents totally responsible for the education of their children, and 6) Strengthen patriarchically ordered families.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

And I said, "Hello, Satan, I believe it's time to go."

I took the position yesterday that Air America Radio, as one of the most visible representatives of the Left, should be somewhat immune to loud public criticism. I had some private email about this, and Oliver Willis left a comment:

I'm all about marching lockstep, but when AA is doing things that actively are counterproductive I think its worth calling them out. For instance I think Franken's show needs to have callers or else it sounds like an NPR program. Rhodes and Schultz clearly understand the medium.

Thanks, ODub, I get your point. I still stand by mine that the Left needs some public solidarity these days for us to be taken seriously, so criticisms of any visible representative have to be carefully considered.

Having said that, here's my first complaint. I'm not sure if it's network wide, but the LA station, KTLK 1150, is playing ads by, get this, Kevin Trudeau.

Who?

Convicted felon Kevin Trudeau tops book charts


Infomercial Marketers Settle Various Charges

Kevin Trudeau Banned from Infomercials


Best-seller ‘Natural Cures’ sparks court battle

Cancer ‘cures’ are empty promises in Kevin Trudeau’s ‘Natural Cures’ book

Oh, that Kevin Trudeau. The weak-chinned creep that is always peddling some crap or other on an infomercial set that looks like Larry King's. Hmm, never seen them both in the same place at the same time.

That AAR, at least here in LA, takes ad money from this doucebag is worthy of criticism. My guess is that their policy is that the color of anyone's money is green, unlike, say, the 3 major networks.

So, I'm torn. If some bottom feeder wants to give our cause money, should we care? We can say he's the rube, the mark, that we're fleecing.

On the other hand, is he fleecing AAR, and by extension all of us, by making millions selling worthless crap, and using our airwaves to do it?

I would sleep better if he wasn't on our air. But that's just me. As usual, your mileage may vary.

Always look on the bright side of life

Jess at Pandagon organized "Blog Like A Conservative" day on Monday, and it was fun. And it helped increase hit count for some of us less traveled blogs.

But today I want to propose Blogging Like a Conservative for real. Here's what I mean.

At the First Annual LA Bloggers Poolside Barbecue some of us talked about Air America Radio. Some of us admitted we had reservations about certain hosts. Nothing wrong there, as we can love the speech, and well, not really care for the speaker.

And just yesterday at Ezra Klein's place some commentors made some pretty disparaging remarks about, again, certain AAR hosts.

Here's how we need to really "Blog Like A Conservative." I have a respectful request of everyone everywhere that wants to win elections for the Left:

STOP CRITICIZING AIR AMERICA RADIO IN PUBLIC!

There, I said it. Sorry if it seems, well, harsh, like I'm trying to stifle fair dissent and discussion. Well, dammit, I am. They are what we have to work with. Not every host may be your personal cup of tea, but they are part of the public face of the Left, and as such, need our pretty darned near unconditional love, at least in public.

You will never hear a Right Winger publicly demean Rush, Hannity, et al, even if, privately, they think the person is an idiot. They show unity, and they stay on message, and we need to learn how to do that. Until then, IMHO, we will continue to be right about almost everything, and still lose elections.

Calm down, resisting carping about Franken or Schultz won't make or break anything, but it is emblematic of the type of focus the Left needs. It will help us to stay on message and present a united front to undecideds. Democrats historically organize circular firing squads. Let's try to stop this cycle. Part of it is the nature of Lefties, to discuss, consider other's viewpoints, ponder, and even change our minds.

But no more, at least visibly.

Any offended by this suggestion, that we march in lock step about anything, too damn bad. You can be right all you want about anything you want. That's cool.

Me, well, I want to start winning elections.

Did we really tell lies, letting in the sunshine...

Yesterday's Pandagon inspired "Blog Like A Conservative" was pretty interesting. Some participants really got it, others less so.

But obviously some of the readers didn't get it. Found in the comments to my post, from Bruce:

Depends on what you mean by "liberal." From my reading, I seem to be a 'South Park liberal,' or is that a South Park conservative?

When I read the self-congratulatory hate-filled rants of what passes for thinking on many left of center blogs, I am frankly repulsed.

When I left a comment recently elsewhere suggesting that Casey Sheehan was a 24 year old second time enlistee who believed in something bigger than himself and put his own life at risk, the rants, including ad hominem attacks by people who have no knowledge whatsoever of who I am, were very numerous and became quite vituperous.

Fortunately, my ego is able to handle unhappy people; it's part of my real life job.

What struck me, however, was the complete lack of any clearly thought out refutations of my positions.

My response: Dude, that's the whole point! I seriously have a hard time understanding how someone could take my post at face value. I was attempting to channel Dennis Prager, who is a deluded buffoon of the first order, and who, in completely circular fashion, supports his points on moral authority by saying "Because I said so."

He goes on:

I have seen dogpiles of this sort on thoughtful liberals elsewhere. I have also read about them, say, in Russia in the early part of the last century.

I don't know if this is a deliberate tactic by Move-on and it's supporters to Bolshevek the left(let me remind you that they are in fact a Stalinist-era legacy group) or simply a reversion to yahooism by overly-under- educated wanna-be radicals. (cough cough hack Saul Alinsky hack cough)

Let me finally observe, additionally, that while you kind, lovely folks are congratulating each other about how morally superior you all are, the Republicans are kicking the motherfucking shit out of you and your oh so pure ideals.

Some of my ideals, too.

Politics is the art of the possible. Quit giving each other blow jobs, and start organizing.

Oh my! Is he saying that MoveOn.org is a Stalinist era group? I rather doubt that, as during the Russian revolution the people weren't really into political action groups that much, what with the Czar's and Lenin's tyranny. Or is he saying, more likely, that the Bolsheveks (sic) are? Thanks, I had forgotten everything I knew about Russian history.

I would have responded directly to the commenter, but since the web site he listed has no email, I will do it here.

Seriously, Bruce, had you taken the time to follow any of the link crumbs I left, you would likely have figured out that this was all parody of the loony right. And I don't know what lefty sites you are reading, because most of the ones I do have either really intelligent, well sourced snark, or actual policy discussions.

And finally, in re: Cindy Sheehan, don't get suckered in the smears by the right. You clearly miss her point, her ONLY point: Why did Casey have to die?

I've seen all good people

As Jesse at Pandagon says, it's been clear for some time now, at least to Americans with any moral values, that liberalism is the ideology that carries the most moral authority.

Based on empirical observation and inherent truths, this fact can not be denied.

If one examines the Torah, for example, one finds many references to liberalism, too many to quote, in fact. Moving liberally forward to the Bible, we find it, again, replete with references to liberalism. I leave the reader to, well, simpy believe me, and not do any further exploration of these documents, since my scholarship is definitive.

However, when examining the Koran, we also find references to liberalism. Since that document is false, however, we must, by purely intellectual parsing, ignore it.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the liberal Blogtopia (yes, skippy coined that phrase.) Blogging by its very nature is a liberal act, and conservatives who attempt to blog are soon frustrated by the nature of blogging. As is readily apparent, blogging requires thought, preferably original and thoughtful thought, and conservatarians historically can't think. It's obvious, it's been proven, by me.

Obsidian Wings has more moral scholarship on this, as does Winding Sheet, and FSHK. If you read these, as well as our sponsor Pandagon, you will be edified by our moral authority.

Hey now baby, get into my big black car

Yesterday in Iraq, from the Assoc. Press:

Masked gunmen killed three Sunni Arabs in front of horrified witnesses outside a mosque in Mosul on Friday, after grabbing them as they hung posters urging fellow Sunnis to vote in a referendum on the new constitution.

Today, Krugman in the NYTimes (bow down and worship even unto him):

In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.

From this I would infer that America is truly a lucky place to live. At least when elections are stolen here, no one dies.

P.S. The best news in Krugmans' post is a small tidbit at the bottom:

"Thomas L. Friedman is on vacation."

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Coretta Scott King suffered a minor heart attack and a major stroke that impaired her ability to speak and affected her right side, but she is ''completely aware,'' a doctor said Thursday.

King's daughter said the family expected a full recovery.

Dr. Charles Wickliffe, a cardiologist at Piedmont Hospital, where the 78-year-old widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. had been hospitalized for two days, said a blood clot had moved from King's heart and lodged in an artery in the left side of her brain.

''This same clot caused a small heart attack and a big stroke,'' said Wickliffe, addressing reporters along with King's four children.

''She's completely aware,'' he said. ''She's not able yet to relay her wishes.''

The stroke caused weakness in King's right arm, her right leg and the right side of her face, and she was not able to speak, Wickliffe said. He said she would remain in the hospital for days and would need intensive therapy.

Folks, she's a symbol of something that started happening many years ago, and is still happening. Civil rights is dynamic, not static. The process is never ending.

It demands vigilance as some people can and will always succomb to evil and base instincts. It is a process, never ending, always beginning.

Dr. King came along at a time when many in the US were truly appalled by the rampant and vicious racism promoted and practiced here. It was not new in the '60s but had been festering since the country was founded. There was always some group to hate, mistreat, and demean. By the time of Dr. King's ascendance to the role of national spokesperson, many, especially on the left, were more than just ashamed and angry about racism, but were willing to take action (see: Schwerner, Goodman, & Chaney).

I spoke to someone in their 20s a year or so ago, we talked about racism. This person DID NOT KNOW that apartheid was practiced in South Africa until '90, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison. That's an indictment of our education system, certainly, but even more, an indictment of our culture in general.

We can't ever forget what happened before, lest it happen again, And it's still happening on a daily basis, in smaller ways perhaps, but it's still there. We don't have Bull Conner anymore, but we have David Duke. We still have the KKK, the Confederate battle flag, and "dumb Caribbean hitters." When one of my conservative friends opines that we don't need affirmative action anymore, I say that I will work to stop AA the minute any school in South Central LA gets the same money per pupil as does Beverly Hills High.

Ms. King is a symbol, but also a person. Since all people have flaws, she, as is everyone, is imperfect. So she should be recognized and revered as the symbol, the proud partner of her late husband in his historic quest for major change in the US. He also was a flawed person, but his cause was righteous. And that's all that counts.

Cindy Sheehan is also a person, who has become a symbol. The bleating goats on the right have focused on her personhood, and have lost sight of her symbolism. But that is exactly her true strength. She is standng up and saying 'look at me, listen to my words. It's not who I am, but what I am asking'. As she says on HuffPo,

Even after my repeated attempts to keep the focus of my protest on the war, the Drudge Report and others continue to try to make the issue about me. But I am not the issue. The issue is a disastrous war that's killing our sons and daughters and making our country less secure. They attack me because they can no longer defend this war.

I am not trying to show equivalence between Sheehan and Dr. King. Only history, fairly told, can do that. But I can say that she has the potential to jumpstart a huge anti-war movement now, and so far seems to have avoided, by her purity of purpose, any missteps that would tarnish her image. I think she is poised to become an even bigger symbol, of a change that hopefully will take place in America.