Published on Friday, February 29, 2008 by The Nation
by Naomi Klein
Hillary Clinton denied leaking the photo of Barack Obama wearing a turban, but her campaign manager says that even if she had, it would be no big deal. “Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.”
Sure she did. And George W. Bush put on a fetching Chamato poncho in Santiago, while Paul Wolfowitz burned up YouTube with his antimalarial African dance routines when he was World Bank prez. The obvious difference is this: when white politicians go ethnic, they just look funny. When a black presidential contender does it, he looks foreign. And when the ethnic apparel in question is vaguely reminiscent of the clothing worn by Iraqi and Afghan fighters (at least to many Fox viewers, who think any headdress other than a baseball cap is a declaration of war on America), the image is downright frightening.
The turban “scandal” is all part of what is being referred to as “the Muslim smear.” It includes everything from exaggerated enunciations of Obama’s middle name to the online whisper campaign that Obama attended a fundamentalist madrassa in Indonesia (a lie), was sworn in on a Koran (another lie) and if elected would attach RadioShack speakers to the White House to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer (I made that one up).
So far, Obama’s campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. “Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity,” states one fact sheet. “I’m not and never have been of the Muslim faith,” Obama told a Christian News reporter.
Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn’t have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign’s response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire “Muslim smear”: that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama’s supporters often say they are being “Swiftboated,” casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.
Substitute another faith or ethnicity, and you’d expect a very different response. Consider a report from the archives of this magazine. Thirteen years ago, Daniel Singer, The Nation’s late, much-missed Europe correspondent, went to Poland to cover a hotly contested presidential election. He reported that the race had descended into an ugly debate over whether one of the candidates, Aleksander Kwasniewski, was a closet Jew. The press claimed his mother had been buried in a Jewish cemetery (she was still alive), and a popular TV show aired a skit featuring the Christian candidate dressed as a Hasidic Jew. “What perturbed me,” Singer wryly observed, “was that Kwasniewski’s lawyers threatened to sue for slander rather than press for an indictment under the law condemning racist propaganda.”
We should expect no less of the Obama campaign. When asked during the Ohio debate about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his candidacy, Obama did not hesitate to call Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments “unacceptable and reprehensible.” When the turban photo flap came up in the same debate, he used the occasion to say nothing at all.
Farrakhan’s infamous comments about Jews took place twenty-four years ago. The orgy of hate that is “the Muslim smear” is unfolding in real time, and it promises to greatly intensify in a general election. These attacks do not simply “smear Barack’s Christian faith,” as John Kerry claimed in a campaign mailing. They are an attack on all Muslims, some of whom actually do exercise their rights to cover their heads and send their kids to religious school. Thousands even have the very common name Hussein. All are watching their culture used as a crude bludgeon against Obama, while the candidate who is the symbol of racial harmony fails to defend them. This at a time when US Muslims are bearing the brunt of the Bush Administration’s assaults on civil liberties, including dragnet wiretapping, and are facing a documented spike in hate crimes.
Occasionally, though not nearly enough, Obama says that Muslims are “deserving of respect and dignity.” What he has never done is what Singer called for in Poland: denounce the attacks themselves as racist propaganda, in this case against Muslims.
The core of Obama’s candidacy is that he alone–who lived in Indonesia as a boy and has an African grandmother–can “repair the world” after the Bush wrecking ball. That repair job begins with the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom are convinced that the United States has been waging a war against their faith. This perception is based on facts, among them the fact that Muslim civilians are not counted among the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan; that Islam has been desecrated in US-run prisons; that voting for an Islamic party resulted in collective punishment in Gaza. It is also fueled by the rise of a virulent strain of Islamophobia in Europe and North America.
As the most visible target of this rising racism, Obama has the power to be more than its victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign. The next time he’s asked about his alleged Muslimness, Obama can respond not just by clarifying the facts but by turning the tables. He can state clearly that while a liaison with a pharmaceutical lobbyist may be worthy of scandalized exposure, being a Muslim is not. Changing the terms of the debate this way is not only morally just but tactically smart–it’s the one response that could defuse these hateful attacks. The best part is this: unlike ending the Iraq War and closing Guantánamo, standing up to Islamophobia doesn’t need to wait until after the election. Obama can use his campaign to start now. Let the repairing begin.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Visit Naomi’s website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .
Friday, February 29, 2008
Quaker Teacher Fired For Changing Loyalty Oath
Published on Friday, February 29, 2008 by The San Francisco Chronicle
by Nanette Asimov
California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word “nonviolently” in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.
Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”
A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time.
She signed the oath 15 years ago, when she taught eighth-grade math in Sonoma. And she signed it again when she began a 12-year stint in Vallejo high schools.
Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.
But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.
Modifying the oath “is very clearly not permissible,” the university’s attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. “It’s an unfortunate situation. If she’d just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment.”
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
Kearney-Brown said she could not sign an oath that, to her, suggested she was agreeing to take up arms in defense of the country.
“I honor the Constitution, and I support the Constitution,” she said. “But I want it on record that I defend it nonviolently.”
The trouble began Jan. 17, a little more than a week after she started teaching at the Hayward campus. Filling out her paperwork, she drew an asterisk on the oath next to the word “defend.” She wrote: “As long as it doesn’t require violence.”
The secretary showed the amended oath to a supervisor, who said it was unacceptable, Kearney-Brown recalled.
Shortly after receiving her first paycheck, Kearney-Brown was told to come back and sign the oath.
This time, Kearney-Brown inserted “nonviolently,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.”
That’s when the university sought legal advice.
“Based on the advice of counsel, we cannot permit attachments or addenda that are incompatible and inconsistent with the oath,” the campus’ human resources manager, JoAnne Hill, wrote to Kearney-Brown.
She cited a 1968 case called Smith vs. County Engineer of San Diego. In that suit, a state appellate court ruled that a man being considered for public employment could not amend the oath to declare: his “supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ Whom Almighty God has appointed ruler of Nations, and expressing my dissent from the failure of the Constitution to recognize Christ and to acknowledge the Divine institution of civil government.”
The court called it “a gratuitous injection of the applicant’s religious beliefs into the governmental process.”
But Hill said Kearney-Brown could sign the oath and add a separate note to her personal file that expressed her views.
Kearney-Brown declined. “To me it just wasn’t the same. I take the oath seriously, and if I’m going to sign it, I’m going to do it nonviolently.”
Then came the warning.
“Please understand that this issue needs to be resolved no later than Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, or you will not be allowed to continue to work for the university,” Hill wrote.
The deadline was then extended to Wednesday and she was fired on Thursday.
“I was kind of stunned,” said Kearney-Brown, who is pursuing her master’s degree in math to earn the credentials to do exactly the job she is being fired from.
“I was born to do this,” she said. “I teach developmental math, the lowest level. The kids who are conditionally accepted to the university. Give me the kids who hate math - that’s what I want.”
Oh, I get it now............we're going to have NO TEACHER LEFT BEHIND as well. How clever.
by Nanette Asimov
California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word “nonviolently” in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.
Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”
A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time.
She signed the oath 15 years ago, when she taught eighth-grade math in Sonoma. And she signed it again when she began a 12-year stint in Vallejo high schools.
Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.
But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.
Modifying the oath “is very clearly not permissible,” the university’s attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. “It’s an unfortunate situation. If she’d just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment.”
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
Kearney-Brown said she could not sign an oath that, to her, suggested she was agreeing to take up arms in defense of the country.
“I honor the Constitution, and I support the Constitution,” she said. “But I want it on record that I defend it nonviolently.”
The trouble began Jan. 17, a little more than a week after she started teaching at the Hayward campus. Filling out her paperwork, she drew an asterisk on the oath next to the word “defend.” She wrote: “As long as it doesn’t require violence.”
The secretary showed the amended oath to a supervisor, who said it was unacceptable, Kearney-Brown recalled.
Shortly after receiving her first paycheck, Kearney-Brown was told to come back and sign the oath.
This time, Kearney-Brown inserted “nonviolently,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.”
That’s when the university sought legal advice.
“Based on the advice of counsel, we cannot permit attachments or addenda that are incompatible and inconsistent with the oath,” the campus’ human resources manager, JoAnne Hill, wrote to Kearney-Brown.
She cited a 1968 case called Smith vs. County Engineer of San Diego. In that suit, a state appellate court ruled that a man being considered for public employment could not amend the oath to declare: his “supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ Whom Almighty God has appointed ruler of Nations, and expressing my dissent from the failure of the Constitution to recognize Christ and to acknowledge the Divine institution of civil government.”
The court called it “a gratuitous injection of the applicant’s religious beliefs into the governmental process.”
But Hill said Kearney-Brown could sign the oath and add a separate note to her personal file that expressed her views.
Kearney-Brown declined. “To me it just wasn’t the same. I take the oath seriously, and if I’m going to sign it, I’m going to do it nonviolently.”
Then came the warning.
“Please understand that this issue needs to be resolved no later than Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, or you will not be allowed to continue to work for the university,” Hill wrote.
The deadline was then extended to Wednesday and she was fired on Thursday.
“I was kind of stunned,” said Kearney-Brown, who is pursuing her master’s degree in math to earn the credentials to do exactly the job she is being fired from.
“I was born to do this,” she said. “I teach developmental math, the lowest level. The kids who are conditionally accepted to the university. Give me the kids who hate math - that’s what I want.”
Oh, I get it now............we're going to have NO TEACHER LEFT BEHIND as well. How clever.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Obama Fights False Links to Islam
Can Obama get by this latest "Swift Boating"? Can people see past it?
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) — For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo and association.
Obama and his campaign reacted strongly this week when a photo of him in Kenyan tribal garb began spreading on the Internet. And the praise he received Sunday from Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan prompted pointed questions — during Tuesday night's presidential debate and also in a private meeting over the weekend with Jewish leaders in Cleveland.
During the debate, Obama repeated his denunciation of Farrakhan's views, which have included numerous anti-Semitic comments. And, after being pressed, he rejected Farrakhan's support in the presidential race.
The Democratic candidate says repeatedly that he's a Christian who took the oath of office on a family Bible. Yet on the Internet and on talk radio — and in a campaign introduction for John McCain this week — he is often depicted, falsely, as a Muslim with shadowy ties and his middle name, Hussein, is emphasized as a reminder of Iraq's former leader.
"If anyone is still puzzled about the facts, in fact I have never been a Muslim," he told the Jewish leaders in Cleveland, according to a transcript of the private session.
The photo of Obama wearing Kenyan tribal raiments — taken by an Associated Press photographer during his visit in 2006 to the country where his father was born — resurfaced on the Internet amid unsubstantiated claims that it was being circulated by members of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. Clinton and her aides said they had nothing to do with it. The Obama campaign accused them of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering."
On Tuesday Republican candidate McCain denounced the introduction he got in Cincinnati that criticized Obama in vivid terms. Talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama" and called him a "hack, Chicago-style" politician during the introduction of McCain.
The Obama campaign is closely attuned to the rumors and insinuations. Information on Obama's Christian faith is prominently available on the "Know the facts" page of his Web site. The campaign has distributed flyers to churches in states with presidential contests. And it encourages supporters to flag any attack that may make its way into cyberspace.
"Our campaign is vigilant in quickly responding to any information about Senator Obama that surfaces, be it on the Internet, in the media or from our opponents," spokesman Bill Burton said Wednesday.
If there is confusion — and opportunity for political mischief — it derives at least in part from Obama's rich cultural background. His mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father was Kenyan and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country.
"My grandfather, who was Kenyan, converted to Christianity, then converted to Islam," Obama said Sunday. "My father never practiced; he was basically agnostic. So, other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child, I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."
Obama has become careful in denouncing the links, lately noting that some rumors about him also have been insulting to Muslims. Jim Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, said many Arab Americans are drawn to Obama because of his cultural background.
"It is clear he wants to have a broader relationship with the Muslim world," Zogby said. "He has a biography that connects him to the Muslim world."
Obama, though in the presidential limelight now for more than a year, is still introducing himself to voters. An AP-Yahoo poll in January asked people to volunteer the first few words that came to mind about each of the candidates, and 4 percent of the respondents, unprompted, mentioned the word Muslim when describing Obama.
Some of the rumors and allegations about Obama are clearly not true, yet still spread, often anonymously:
_ A debunked chain e-mail circulating widely on the Internet suggests he is hiding his Islamic roots. It says he was sworn into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.
He took his Senate oath with his hand on a family Bible, and he says, "Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." In fact, no candidate could survive if he publicly spurned the pledge.
_ Another false report says he attended a Muslim madrassa school as a child in Jakarta. Obama was born in Hawaii and moved to Indonesia when he was 6 to live with his mother and stepfather. He returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents. Interviews last year by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it is a public and secular institution and has been open to students of all faiths since before Obama attended in the late 1960s. Said vice principal Akmad Solichin: "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here."
_ Obama also has faced questions about his pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he has been a member for 20 years. Trinity calls itself "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." But it accepts non-black congregants. The United Church of Christ's president and general minister, the Rev. John H. Thomas, was quoted in a church publication as pointing out that the Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, "has been a member of the congregation for years."
_ Obama has been asked about Farrakhan's words of praise and Farrakhan's receipt of an award from "Trumpet Newsmagazine," a Trinity church publication last month. Obama told Jewish leaders Sunday: "An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community and I said so."
Farrakhan did not endorse Obama but said Sunday: "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked Tuesday night whether he would accept support from Farrakhan, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."
Following an exchange with Clinton, he then added: "There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) — For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo and association.
Obama and his campaign reacted strongly this week when a photo of him in Kenyan tribal garb began spreading on the Internet. And the praise he received Sunday from Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan prompted pointed questions — during Tuesday night's presidential debate and also in a private meeting over the weekend with Jewish leaders in Cleveland.
During the debate, Obama repeated his denunciation of Farrakhan's views, which have included numerous anti-Semitic comments. And, after being pressed, he rejected Farrakhan's support in the presidential race.
The Democratic candidate says repeatedly that he's a Christian who took the oath of office on a family Bible. Yet on the Internet and on talk radio — and in a campaign introduction for John McCain this week — he is often depicted, falsely, as a Muslim with shadowy ties and his middle name, Hussein, is emphasized as a reminder of Iraq's former leader.
"If anyone is still puzzled about the facts, in fact I have never been a Muslim," he told the Jewish leaders in Cleveland, according to a transcript of the private session.
The photo of Obama wearing Kenyan tribal raiments — taken by an Associated Press photographer during his visit in 2006 to the country where his father was born — resurfaced on the Internet amid unsubstantiated claims that it was being circulated by members of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. Clinton and her aides said they had nothing to do with it. The Obama campaign accused them of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering."
On Tuesday Republican candidate McCain denounced the introduction he got in Cincinnati that criticized Obama in vivid terms. Talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama" and called him a "hack, Chicago-style" politician during the introduction of McCain.
The Obama campaign is closely attuned to the rumors and insinuations. Information on Obama's Christian faith is prominently available on the "Know the facts" page of his Web site. The campaign has distributed flyers to churches in states with presidential contests. And it encourages supporters to flag any attack that may make its way into cyberspace.
"Our campaign is vigilant in quickly responding to any information about Senator Obama that surfaces, be it on the Internet, in the media or from our opponents," spokesman Bill Burton said Wednesday.
If there is confusion — and opportunity for political mischief — it derives at least in part from Obama's rich cultural background. His mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father was Kenyan and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country.
"My grandfather, who was Kenyan, converted to Christianity, then converted to Islam," Obama said Sunday. "My father never practiced; he was basically agnostic. So, other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child, I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."
Obama has become careful in denouncing the links, lately noting that some rumors about him also have been insulting to Muslims. Jim Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, said many Arab Americans are drawn to Obama because of his cultural background.
"It is clear he wants to have a broader relationship with the Muslim world," Zogby said. "He has a biography that connects him to the Muslim world."
Obama, though in the presidential limelight now for more than a year, is still introducing himself to voters. An AP-Yahoo poll in January asked people to volunteer the first few words that came to mind about each of the candidates, and 4 percent of the respondents, unprompted, mentioned the word Muslim when describing Obama.
Some of the rumors and allegations about Obama are clearly not true, yet still spread, often anonymously:
_ A debunked chain e-mail circulating widely on the Internet suggests he is hiding his Islamic roots. It says he was sworn into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.
He took his Senate oath with his hand on a family Bible, and he says, "Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." In fact, no candidate could survive if he publicly spurned the pledge.
_ Another false report says he attended a Muslim madrassa school as a child in Jakarta. Obama was born in Hawaii and moved to Indonesia when he was 6 to live with his mother and stepfather. He returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents. Interviews last year by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it is a public and secular institution and has been open to students of all faiths since before Obama attended in the late 1960s. Said vice principal Akmad Solichin: "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here."
_ Obama also has faced questions about his pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he has been a member for 20 years. Trinity calls itself "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." But it accepts non-black congregants. The United Church of Christ's president and general minister, the Rev. John H. Thomas, was quoted in a church publication as pointing out that the Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, "has been a member of the congregation for years."
_ Obama has been asked about Farrakhan's words of praise and Farrakhan's receipt of an award from "Trumpet Newsmagazine," a Trinity church publication last month. Obama told Jewish leaders Sunday: "An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community and I said so."
Farrakhan did not endorse Obama but said Sunday: "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked Tuesday night whether he would accept support from Farrakhan, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."
Following an exchange with Clinton, he then added: "There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."
Candidates Lay Out Baseball Allegiances
In a brilliant stroke of incisive reporting, if I must say so myself, my journalistic work has revealed the baseball logyalties of the various presidential candidates. The results may come as a surprise to some, while others will have their darkest suspicions confirmed.
Barack Obama: "I believe in hope. It's been a century since the Cubs won a World Series. People....the time is NOW!"
Hillary Clinton: "I'm a New York Yankees fan. Like the Yankees, I have been there, in the thick of the fight, winning the World Series. They can make things happen, and so can I! Plus, they're owned by a billionaire who might contribute to my campaign."
John McCain: " As a humble Senator from the great state of Arizona, I support the Arizona Diamondbacks. True, it's torture to watch them. But I know about torture. That's why, ladies and gentlemen, I will make a great president and commander in chief. Plus, I like chili dogs. What food is more American than chili dogs?"
Mike Huckabee: "Baseball is wrong for America. God does NOT support baseball, especially the Chicago Cubs. Baseball is NOT mentioned in the Holy Bible. When I talk to God, HE does not like baseball. As president, one of my first acts would be to eliminate the sinful game of baseball. I think arena football is the way to go. And I'm not afraid to say it in the eyss of the American people and in the eyes of the LORD"
Ralph Nader: "People, the Milwaukee Braves never should have moved to Atlanta. This was just plain wrong and I want to make it clear that I am the only candidate who will say this. You will not hear it from the other candidates who have strong, murky ties to professional baseball. But it needs to be part of the debate. Hey, I like bowling and I hate to see it sullied by candidates who wont' listen to the millions of Americans who love bowling. I read recently that attendance in the venerable American institution, the bowling league, are down. Now, they are getting their bowling shirts from overseas, taking jobs from hard-working Americans as well. This is symptomatic of what's wrong with America. Baseball? We need to focus.................
There you have it. This is stuff you won't see on CNN. But it's an important choice and we, the American people, must have all the information when we enter the polling booth this November. There's a lot on the line!
Barack Obama: "I believe in hope. It's been a century since the Cubs won a World Series. People....the time is NOW!"
Hillary Clinton: "I'm a New York Yankees fan. Like the Yankees, I have been there, in the thick of the fight, winning the World Series. They can make things happen, and so can I! Plus, they're owned by a billionaire who might contribute to my campaign."
John McCain: " As a humble Senator from the great state of Arizona, I support the Arizona Diamondbacks. True, it's torture to watch them. But I know about torture. That's why, ladies and gentlemen, I will make a great president and commander in chief. Plus, I like chili dogs. What food is more American than chili dogs?"
Mike Huckabee: "Baseball is wrong for America. God does NOT support baseball, especially the Chicago Cubs. Baseball is NOT mentioned in the Holy Bible. When I talk to God, HE does not like baseball. As president, one of my first acts would be to eliminate the sinful game of baseball. I think arena football is the way to go. And I'm not afraid to say it in the eyss of the American people and in the eyes of the LORD"
Ralph Nader: "People, the Milwaukee Braves never should have moved to Atlanta. This was just plain wrong and I want to make it clear that I am the only candidate who will say this. You will not hear it from the other candidates who have strong, murky ties to professional baseball. But it needs to be part of the debate. Hey, I like bowling and I hate to see it sullied by candidates who wont' listen to the millions of Americans who love bowling. I read recently that attendance in the venerable American institution, the bowling league, are down. Now, they are getting their bowling shirts from overseas, taking jobs from hard-working Americans as well. This is symptomatic of what's wrong with America. Baseball? We need to focus.................
There you have it. This is stuff you won't see on CNN. But it's an important choice and we, the American people, must have all the information when we enter the polling booth this November. There's a lot on the line!
The Audacity of Hope
It's one degree outside. There's at least two feet of snow on the ground. But something keeps me going. I know the start of baseball season is only a month away. Being a life-long Cub fan, I believe in hope. I have to in order to survive. I watch the Cubs year after year. Most years they suck. Often they show signs of brilliance. Pretty human, if you ask me. Last year, the Cubs made the playoffs after some dismal years. Perhaps this year they'll be even better. Time for my annual prediction. Folks, you've heard it here first: the Cubs will win the World Series this year. There, I said it. I'm ready for an exciting year of thrills, chills and likely disappointment. You may ask why? Or who cares, Mr Poodledoc? Is this some kind of perverse addiction? Is Barack Obama a Cub fan? One of my plans today is to contact his campaign and find out. The public has a right to know.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Nader Is Too Late to Play, and Stakes Are Too High
I find myself agreeing with much of what is said here. Yes, Nader raises some important issues, asks some tough questions. But I don't respect him for two things: not "bothering" to build a party, a viable third-party, and helping Bush steal Florida. Things would likely have been better if Nader had stayed out of the race in 2000. But I guess we'll never REALLY know. Thanks a bunch, Ralph.....
Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
by Ed Garvey
The New York Times reported the other day that Ralph Nader was thinking of running for president this year and before anyone could holler “No Más!” Ralph went on “Meet the Press” and announced he is, indeed, a candidate, apparently without a party.
In the interest of disclosure, I have to tell you that Ralph campaigned for me in my Senate race against Bob Kasten in 1986 and he has been a role model for taking on the establishment. In my view he has done more for consumers than anyone. I like and respect Ralph. (But I feel compelled to deal with one issue: Florida. I guess he didn’t cause the defeat of Al Gore because Gore won! But, had he not been in the race, the theft of Florida might have been too large to cover up.)
Ralph said some things in 2000 about Gore and Bush that made most of us scratch our heads. No difference between them? Whoa, Nelly! Had Bush not won, 4 million displaced Iraqis might be at home; thousands of American casualties would probably have been avoided; John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be justices on the U.S. Supreme Court; and we wouldn’t be talking about waterboarding or repeal of habeas corpus.
There was a big difference. A huge difference. Had Gore been elected, we would have a jump on global warming. With Bush we are the laughingstock of the world we should be leading.
It is a given that Ralph marches to his own drummer and will ignore my advice, but I’m giving it anyway. Stick to the issues. Don’t fire at the Democratic candidate by telling us he is a younger John McCain. Raise all the issues, and propose your own solutions.
Ralph asked, “Who will raise the issue of single-payer health care if I don’t”? The answer is: You can raise it every day — you don’t need to be a candidate to speak up. Dennis Kucinich raised the issue in almost every debate he was in and we will push Barack Obama in that direction. The 47 million people without health insurance will demand a workable solution. I’m all for single-payer because it is the most efficient, cost-effective and sensible way to deal with our broken health care delivery system.
Having said that, we could all have predicted that neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton would embrace single-payer. Had Ralph joined Kucinich in the primaries, the two might have forced the issue, but it’s too late now.
And suppose Ralph would be the only one to raise the issue. Where would he raise it? He won’t be in the debates, so did raising it on “Meet the Press,” when Super Tuesday is a distant memory, advance the case for single-payer health care? I don’t think so.
Suppose Ralph had a legitimate chance to be elected president. That could only happen if he won the nomination as a Democrat.
Ralph is right in pushing his issues, but if he would somehow be the decisive factor in electing John McCain, you can take it to the bank — we would have no comprehensive health care for four and probably eight years but we would witness the tragedy of another Roberts, Scalia, or Alito going to the Supreme Court and we would endure four more years of Gitmo, torture, renditions, tax cuts for the wealthy while millions are kicked out of their homes. We might well bear witness to the bombing of Iran.
Let’s face it. This is not 1968 but the stakes are very high. Single-payer vs. Obama’s plan does not measure up to the Vietnam War as a moral imperative. As for Iraq, we will not have hawks leading the ticket. Clinton and Obama want to end the occupation. Had Clinton and Obama said, “McCain is right — 50 or 100 years — fine with us” then someone might be needed to take on the Democratic nominee. But I repeat, this is not 1968. This is not Gene McCarthy taking on Lyndon Johnson.
The time to take on the issues was in Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Super Tuesday. OK, I feel better.
Eyes on the prize!
Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer, political activist and the editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.
Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
by Ed Garvey
The New York Times reported the other day that Ralph Nader was thinking of running for president this year and before anyone could holler “No Más!” Ralph went on “Meet the Press” and announced he is, indeed, a candidate, apparently without a party.
In the interest of disclosure, I have to tell you that Ralph campaigned for me in my Senate race against Bob Kasten in 1986 and he has been a role model for taking on the establishment. In my view he has done more for consumers than anyone. I like and respect Ralph. (But I feel compelled to deal with one issue: Florida. I guess he didn’t cause the defeat of Al Gore because Gore won! But, had he not been in the race, the theft of Florida might have been too large to cover up.)
Ralph said some things in 2000 about Gore and Bush that made most of us scratch our heads. No difference between them? Whoa, Nelly! Had Bush not won, 4 million displaced Iraqis might be at home; thousands of American casualties would probably have been avoided; John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be justices on the U.S. Supreme Court; and we wouldn’t be talking about waterboarding or repeal of habeas corpus.
There was a big difference. A huge difference. Had Gore been elected, we would have a jump on global warming. With Bush we are the laughingstock of the world we should be leading.
It is a given that Ralph marches to his own drummer and will ignore my advice, but I’m giving it anyway. Stick to the issues. Don’t fire at the Democratic candidate by telling us he is a younger John McCain. Raise all the issues, and propose your own solutions.
Ralph asked, “Who will raise the issue of single-payer health care if I don’t”? The answer is: You can raise it every day — you don’t need to be a candidate to speak up. Dennis Kucinich raised the issue in almost every debate he was in and we will push Barack Obama in that direction. The 47 million people without health insurance will demand a workable solution. I’m all for single-payer because it is the most efficient, cost-effective and sensible way to deal with our broken health care delivery system.
Having said that, we could all have predicted that neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton would embrace single-payer. Had Ralph joined Kucinich in the primaries, the two might have forced the issue, but it’s too late now.
And suppose Ralph would be the only one to raise the issue. Where would he raise it? He won’t be in the debates, so did raising it on “Meet the Press,” when Super Tuesday is a distant memory, advance the case for single-payer health care? I don’t think so.
Suppose Ralph had a legitimate chance to be elected president. That could only happen if he won the nomination as a Democrat.
Ralph is right in pushing his issues, but if he would somehow be the decisive factor in electing John McCain, you can take it to the bank — we would have no comprehensive health care for four and probably eight years but we would witness the tragedy of another Roberts, Scalia, or Alito going to the Supreme Court and we would endure four more years of Gitmo, torture, renditions, tax cuts for the wealthy while millions are kicked out of their homes. We might well bear witness to the bombing of Iran.
Let’s face it. This is not 1968 but the stakes are very high. Single-payer vs. Obama’s plan does not measure up to the Vietnam War as a moral imperative. As for Iraq, we will not have hawks leading the ticket. Clinton and Obama want to end the occupation. Had Clinton and Obama said, “McCain is right — 50 or 100 years — fine with us” then someone might be needed to take on the Democratic nominee. But I repeat, this is not 1968. This is not Gene McCarthy taking on Lyndon Johnson.
The time to take on the issues was in Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Super Tuesday. OK, I feel better.
Eyes on the prize!
Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer, political activist and the editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
"My Name is Rachel Corrie" comes to Madison. At last.
March 16 will mark five years since the death of Rachel Corrie in Rafah.
There will be a local production of the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, in Madison. The play will open on Friday, March 7 at 7:30 pm at the Orpheum Theater, 216 State Street. Admission is $5.00.
Preceding the play, there will be a fundraising dinner beginning at 5:30 pm in the Orpheum Lobby Restaurant with Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie. All proceeds above cost will go toward emergency relief in Gaza.
The play will be performed again on Saturday, March 8 at 7:30 pm at the Orpheum Theater. On Friday, March 14 and Saturday, March 15, the play will move to the Overture Center for the Arts, 201 State Street. Both shows will be at 7:30 pm. A donation is requested for admission.
We hope you will join us and please bring friends and family. The play is appropriate for older middle school and high school students. Finally, the play script has been issued in book form and can be purchased at Rainbow Bookstore. It will also be available at the play.(the script is very moving and important to read, even if you can't make the play.......
For more information on the Madison production, call 608-906-3207 or e-mail rafahsistercity(at)yahoo.com
There will be a local production of the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, in Madison. The play will open on Friday, March 7 at 7:30 pm at the Orpheum Theater, 216 State Street. Admission is $5.00.
Preceding the play, there will be a fundraising dinner beginning at 5:30 pm in the Orpheum Lobby Restaurant with Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie. All proceeds above cost will go toward emergency relief in Gaza.
The play will be performed again on Saturday, March 8 at 7:30 pm at the Orpheum Theater. On Friday, March 14 and Saturday, March 15, the play will move to the Overture Center for the Arts, 201 State Street. Both shows will be at 7:30 pm. A donation is requested for admission.
We hope you will join us and please bring friends and family. The play is appropriate for older middle school and high school students. Finally, the play script has been issued in book form and can be purchased at Rainbow Bookstore. It will also be available at the play.(the script is very moving and important to read, even if you can't make the play.......
For more information on the Madison production, call 608-906-3207 or e-mail rafahsistercity(at)yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
