(Sen. Dunne remains the only elected official to take us up on our invitation to front page any user diaries they might care to offer. Thanks again for contributing, Matt. – promoted by odum)

Dunne Calls for Boycott of International Paper Products Sold in Vermont

With Lake Champlain and the Ticonderoga paper mill as a backdrop and an impending decision by the EPA due today, Matt Dunne and several Addison County supporters including fellow state senators Claire Ayer and Harold Giard announced a new strategy to fight the proposed burning of toxic tires across the lake.

“If the Bush Administration won’t protect Vermont’s air, water, mountains, and milk by stopping the tire burn, Vermonters will make our own plan of action,” said Dunne. “After years of conventional discussions and negotiating, it’s become clear to me that International Paper simply doesn’t care about Vermonters’ health or land.”

“Boycotts like this are not to be used lightly,” Dunne explained. “We have given IP every opportunity to install technologies already in use at their other plants to prevent toxic air from polluting Vermont, including an offer to fund its installation. Time and time again, IP has ignored our appeals. With the test burn imminent pending the EPA’s decision, it’s time for concerned Vermonters, businesses, and especially state government, to send a clear and strong message to IP: Don’t trash Vermont.”

“I applaud the work of Attorney General Sorrell and Governor Douglas to pursue a legal strategy against this tire burning. However, until a legal remedy is achieved, every Vermonter and their state government can use the power of their pocketbook to send this message,” continued Dunne.

In a press conference held in Shoreham today, Dunne and his fellow state senators Claire Ayer and Harold Giard of Addison County joined local opponents of the tire burn to announce a three point plan of action to pressure IP to stop the tire burn:

1. Citizen Boycott of International Paper Products

Vermonters who oppose the tire burn can visit www.MattDunne.com starting at 5pm today to learn what products not to buy, as well as find contact information for the company CEO to send letters about their decision to boycott.

Vermont businesses, especially in the agricultural and milk industries, can boycott the purchase of many IP products. A working group of state officials and industry leaders is already forming to explore these possibilities in detail.

2. State Government Purchasing Boycott of International Paper Products

Working with Governor Douglas and other agency officials, state government must begin an immediate review process to determine what IP products are currently purchased with taxpayer dollars, and work expeditiously to stop any further purchasing, including the purchase of pink envelopes used daily in the State House to for inner-agency communications.

Divestiture of All State-Controlled Pension and Endowment Funds from International Paper

Working with State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, all government-managed pension funds, endowments, or other invested securities should be immediately reviewed to see if any publicly managed funds are invested in International Paper, and if they are, should be immediately divested in favor of sustainable and appropriate investment opportunities.

Information about the health effects of the potential tire burn is available www.lesspollution.org

###

It’s the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. And if you don’t wanna hear about it, remember this is the internet after all, and you’re just visiting. Here’s a link to a proposed Democratic Party Platform using only the words of Captain Kirk. Happy anniversary.

Shay Totten at the Vermont Guardian has the dirt on all the rumored attempts of cross-ballot mischief such as the attempt by some to write in Fred Tuttle on the GOP Senatorial ballot line. The Rainville team would have folks believe that the crossover attempt initiated by a lone wolf Dem into their primary is somehow organized from on high, which is patently ridiculous. (But please folks, Republicans have a right to pick their candidate too…let’s not play the disenfranchisement game. Democracy has been taking it on the chin for too long without lefties adding too it)

Pushback on the abominable work of conservative fan ficton written by Rush Limbaugh’s buddy and screened for and promoted by right wing blogs and radio shows, “The Path to 9-11” is extraordinary, far and away surpassing the right wing reaction to “The Reagans” miniseries. Unlike in that instance, however, PT-9/11 will be going ahead anyway, and supporting materials have already been sent to schools. This despite two requests from Bill Clinton’s lawyers for it to be stopped, signed letters from Senators, US Representatives, a petition with morean 200,000 names, the resignation of FBI advisors on the project and the disgust of the Democratic members of the 9/11 commission (as well as the opinion of many lawyers that the admittedly made-up scenes may be defamatory and actionable). Understand, this thing is so egregious, even right wingers such as Bill Bennett and Fox’s Chris Wallace have called on it to be pulled from the schedule. For updates, see dKos.

Closer to home, there have been two big editorial shake-ups. The Caledonian (Broken) Record has fired Managing Editor Lyn Bixby suddenly, and apparently over staff conflicts so severe, there were threatened resignations. The C(B)R was ultra-right-wing loopyland before Bixby’s arrival, but it will be interesting to see if there are any noticable changes on the editorial pages.

Also, Maria Archangelo is leaving as Managing Editor of the Times Argus. Archangelo is well liked by many, but under her tenure the TA fallen even farther under the shadow of its sister paper, the Rutland Herald.

September 8, 2006 Edition
U.S. Politicians Should Focus On Tehran, Netanyahu Says

BY DANIEL FREEDMAN – Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 8, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/39275

NEW YORK – Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of an American tour repositioning himself for a return to the Israeli premiership, told an audience in New York yesterday that President Bush is preparing to ditch the United Nations to take on Iran alone and that American politicians of all parties would do well to stop squabbling about Iraq and join the president in focusing on threat from Tehran.

The former prime minister, who leads the right of center Likud Party in opposition to the current government, went on to tell lunch guests of the Hudson Institute that another war between Hezbollah and Israel is inevitable and that a shift in Israeli politics is about to take place with his return to power and a return to the principles that guided thinking in Jerusalem until the Oslo Accords.

Largely ignored in the coverage of Mr. Bush’s speech Tuesday on the war on terror, Mr. Netanyahu told his audience more than once, was Mr. Bush’s statement that “the world’s free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.” Not that the “United Nations won’t allow,” said Mr. Netanyahu, but that the “free nations” of the world won’t allow. Mr. Netanyahu called it a sign that on the Iranian problem the president was preparing to stop working through the United Nations and instead work with whoever would join him.

Unfortunately, said Mr. Netanyahu, Britain and America, along with Israel and Iran, are the only countries at the moment that understand what is at stake if Iran acquires the bomb. Meantime, “the Europeans …” Mr. Netanyahu trailed off, struggling to find the right word, at which point members of the audience interjected with inaudible, although apparently uncomplimentary, suggestions. “I’m trying to be diplomatic,” Mr. Netanyahu replied before saying, “for the sake of mankind,” Iran couldn’t be permitted to have a nuclear weapon.

Israel’s one-time ambassador to the United Nations urged Americans of all political persuasions to “not get caught up” arguing about Iraq. Mr. Netanyahu dismissed the argument that fears of Iranian plans for WMD might be false in the way that predictions on Iraq have come under question. Mr. Netanyahu said Israel had told America that claims about Iraq’s weapons were based on “conjecture,” while with Iran “we’re not guessing. We know.”

Americans should be focusing on Iran, Mr. Netanyahu said, because while Iran is now focusing its attention on Israel through its proxy terrorist organization, Hezbollah, “Israel is merely the first step.” There’s a reason, he reminded the audience, that Israel is only called the “little Satan.” No guessing who is next said Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Netanyahu’s spoke of what he would do “when prime minister” – or “if” as he laughingly (while winking) had to correct himself. While Mr. Netanyahu refused to criticize Prime Minister Olmert, he predicted the collapse of Mr. Olmert’s political party, Kadima. The way to defeat Hezbollah “next time” – Mr. Netanyahu said as a matter of fact that another war was coming – is to act quickly and decisively.

Anyone who thinks Israel’s military can’t defeat “a few hundred armed Iranian proxies” fundamentally underestimates the capability of Israel’s military, Mr. Netanyahu said. The time to act after being attacked is straight away – when world opinion, “even” the Europeans and most Arab nations, is outside. A quick victory is needed to win the diplomatic war as well.

Mr. Netanyahu, the son of a distinguished historian, used sweeping historical references throughout his remarks. He told of how, when questioned in London about the “proportionality” of Israel’s response in Lebanon, he told British audiences that the number of rockets Hezbollah fired at Israel was 4,000, the same number as the Germans fired at London during the Second World War. Britain’s response to the 4,000 rockets led to the death of hundreds of thousands of German civilians. This is not, he hastened to add, to say that Winston Churchill was wrong – but to put Israel’s actions in context. “That quickly silenced them,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

Responding to a question asking whether the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s created Hezbollah, Mr. Netanyahu said that “the Israeli occupation of London doesn’t exist and yet you have militant Islam there,” as well as in Rotterdam and in other places across the globe where Israeli troops have never visited. Hezbollah is not a creation of Israel, he said. Israel’s occupation may have been used as a pretext by Hezbollah, but would have happened anyway – it’s part of the rise of radical Islam.

What really encouraged Hezbollah’s rise, Mr. Netanyahu said, was the manner of Israel’s withdrawal – without victory or a peace agreement. The sight of Israeli troops leaving and Hezbollah terrorists taking their place while celebrating encouraged Palestinian Arab terrorists to hope for the same. To defeat “Militant Islam,” Mr. Netanyahu said, one “must deprive it of victory.” Every time you retreat, every time terrorists gain victory, that’s when they recruit. “Power attracts, weakness repeals,” he said. “Victory attracts, defeat repulses.”

Mr. Netanyahu told the gathering at the Four Seasons that Prime Minister Olmert’s Kadima party was built on the policy of unilateral withdrawals – a premise that is now dead. And so, went his implication, is the party and Mr. Olmert’s premiership. The policy of unilateral withdrawals started with the Oslo Accords. He spoke of how, from Israel’s founding until then, Israel’s military and her relations with her Arab neighbors had been based on Vladimir Jabotinsky’s concept of the “Iron Wall.”

This was a reference to a phrase used by the right of center Zionist, who held that only when the Arabs became convinced that they couldn’t destroy Israel – with every attack on Israel met by an “iron wall” – would peace follow. If Israel’s deterrence and response to attack was so strong the Arab’s found themselves banging themselves against an “Iron Wall,” they’d realize the futility of trying to destroy Israel and seek peace. The “Iron Wall” principle, said Mr. Netanyahu, led to peace with Egypt and Jordan. They attacked Israel, were soundly defeated, and sued for peace.

The Oslo Accords abandoned the “Iron Wall” strategy, said Mr. Netanyahu, and Israel’s leaders decided instead to “build a bridge through the wall.” The Palestinian Arabs responded, as Jabotinsky had warned, with terrorism. But instead of reverting back to the “Iron Wall,” Israel’s leaders instead offered “more freebies” to the terrorists – unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza. “When prime minister,” Netanyahu said he’d return Israel to the “Iron Wall” guiding principle. Mr. Netanyahu didn’t mention that he oversaw the Israeli withdrawal from the city of Hebron.

The second half of Mr. Netanyahu’s case for his return to the premiership was his management of the economy, although he stressed more than once that he’d only take the finance portfolio again if it was with the premiership as well. As finance minister, Mr. Netanyahu told the audience, he introduced painful free market reforms that revitalized Israel’s economy. Mr. Netanyahu described globalization as a “God-send” for Israel and “for everyone.” The first half of the year saw Israel’s economy growing at 6%, with low inflation and falling unemployment. The economy endured the war thanks to Mr. Netanyahu’s reforms, Mr. Netanyahu said, and remains the fastest growing developing economy.

Some clever bloggers (alas, not me), have been tracking down where $40 million came from. That’s the cost of the ABC neo-con fantasy called Path to 9/11.

Who could have paid that much money? Why? Was it the American taxpayers? Was it someone else? Was it some combination or the two?

Details after the jump

Once upon a time there was a fundamentalist movie director. He had kids. His kids founded an organization for teen indoctination called “Youth with a Mission” (YWAM).

They got kids to pay them money to be allowed to go do missionary work. The groups for whom the work was being done ALSO paid YWAM. Not a bad deal – get ’em coming and going.

Anyway, they apparently got bored convincing people to pay them money so that they could kick back in Hawaii while others did all the charity work. So they decided to branch out and into film making. They created or teamed up with (it’s unclear at this point) a group called The Film Institute, which they call an “auxilliary arm” of YWAM.

Our next big project is to assist in the development of the new YWAM auxiliary – The Film Institute (TFI). The Film Institute is dedicated to a Godly transformation and
revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry;

TO it, by serving, living humbly with integrity in what is often a world driven by selfish ambition, power an money – transforming lives from within,

and THROUGH it, by creating relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.

[note: I pasted the whole thing here, because all that’s left (besides the copy I downloaded for posterity) is the Google cache, which will likely be wiped now that its existence has become public.

Mission: Indocrination

Their very first film sounds pretty innocuous. It’s working title:

The Untitled History Project Begins Production July 25th. Please pray for the Executive Team, the Director’s Team, Department Heads, Actors, Crew and Interns. Also please ask that the project would reach its target budget and schedule objectives.  – and don’t forget to pray for us!

The Untitled History Project. Sounds kinda bland, really, but an interesting thing happened on the way through the marketing process, it’s real name emerged: “Path to 9/11.”

So a couple of kids running a youth missionary program suddenly become movie-makers of a $40 million dollar movie that will take over the prime time slot of a major network for 2 nights in a row, and be accompanied by an indoctrination guide published by one of the most trusted sources of study information in schools across the nation. “Poof,” like magic!

Erm, well, they had help.

( – promoted by mataliandy)

To survive people conformed. They kept silent. And the continuous propaganda worked.

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

In the USSR, Lenin and Stalin cultivated their power with the aid of the media. Sure, media was less sophisticated in those days: radio, newspapers, and the movies were pretty much it. But with willing propagandists at the media helm, tyranny was certainly an easier ride – for the tyrants.

Propaganda
Function: noun
Definition:
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Propaganda was the pretty face painted on brutality. It was able to whip up boogey men in an instant, regularly trumpeting the latest “enemy of the state,” as if the poor victim was the political equivalent of the day’s biggest fashion faux-pas.

But propaganda laid out in sheets of a newspaper or floating freely across the radio waves could only carry them so far.

Follow me below the fold…

What was needed?

Well-indoctrinated kids brimming full of propaganda could be mustered to help the Bolshevik leaders deal with their fundamental problem-that the masses, the older generations, remained backwards.

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

They needed to cultivate crops of believers. They needed indoctrination.

To survive people conformed. They kept silent. And the continuous propaganda worked.

As a schoolgirl in the 1950s Tatiana Vorontsova remembers she learned the Morozov lesson in the fourth grade. “… We, of course, would also have liked to be heroes and at that time if I had been in the same situation, and my father had done something against the Soviet state, of course, I would simply have gone and reported him, just like that.”

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

And this brings us to a modern tale of propaganda.

Next Monday, is the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the day thousands of Americans were murdered in cold blood by fundamentalist religious zealots. Our President says they did it because they hate America, they hate our freedoms. He says we should: …uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here.  We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

Next Monday, ABC plans to show a fictionalized “docudrama,” written by Rush Limbaugh’s friend Cyrus Nowrasteh, with the help of the Thomas Kean, appointed by the President to be the figurehead at the helm of the 9-11 Commission (which Bush didn’t … want to happen … at all).

ABC claims that the movie is “a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources,” implying that if it’s in the movie, it’s real, and came from a credible source. That claim is a lie of omission, because it leaves out vital information that, if known, would drastically change the perspective of the viewer. 

The most popular scene in right-wing blog land is one in which (try to follow me here, it’s a bit convoluted) the Northern Alliance, which doesn’t have bin Laden surrounded, doesn’t have a CIA official ask a White House official for permission to bomb the not-surrounded bin Laden. The call was never made, but in the non-call, the CIA official is told by the administration official whom he didn’t call, that they can’t bomb the bad guy they don’t have surrounded.

But of course the scene replaces all the parts that didn’t happen in real life, with stuff that does happen in Disney life.

And that’s not the only scene that pushes history through the looking glass.

Remember the definition of propaganda?  That whole thing about furthering your own cause while hurting your opponent’s?

It sure sounds like this movie uses a whole bucket of paint in a flimsy attempt to blot out the truth of Democratic [.wav sound file] competence, while tossing a big ol’ throw-rug over the Republican incompetence.

One of the biggest roadblocks to actually protecting us against terrorists was the Republican Congress, which was so obsessed by the trivial matter of two consenting adults “diddling,” that they refused to see terrorism as the crucial life-and-death issue it was. In fact, they seemed to relish using a movie title as a metaphor to imply fighting terrorism was a diversion from  the real business of hanky panky in the oval office: 

“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: “It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that’s not the situation and I trust that it isn’t.”

One of the first questions asked of [Clinton’s] Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon [briefing] was how he would respond to people who think the military action “bears a striking resemblance to ‘Wag the Dog.”‘

“The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities,” Cohen said. “That is the sole motivation.”
(from: http://www.cnn.com/A…)

Anything Can Come True, If You Wish it Hard Enough

They believe they can wipe the slate clean, perhaps?  They know the short attention span of the American public. Maybe, if they can tell big enough lies on the TV, they can fool enough people to bring them to victory in November.

They don’t want people to remember their failure to protect us. They want people to forget that President Bush, the man who did a little landscaping while terrorists prepared to kill thousands, the man they have supported in every failed policy, every bungled action, every stupid move, let 9/11 happen on his watch, then promptly ran the ship of state aground in the desert of the Middle East, without any strategy, without caring enough about the lives of our sons and daughters to have devised a definition of success. So now our kids and those of all the innocent civilians in a country that posed no threat, have merged into an endless stream of blood and death half a world away.

But Wait! There’s More!

Remember that propaganda through the media can only be “so” effective. The “masses” tend to be too cynical to buy it all (except that inexplicable 35% Bush base). But there is a way to cultivate a crop of true believers. To grow a corps of followers who won’t know any better.

Send the Propaganda to School via Indoctri-Cation[tm] Now with Leave no Truth Behind!.

When ABC decided to make this propaganda piece, they also partnered with Scholastic to make a curriculum that requires students to watch the movie and answer “discussion” questions, which are not at all misleading or propagandistic (yeah, that’s the ticket!).

Samples (from Gerogia 10):

• Accompanied by a Bush 9/11 Bullhorn Picture, states that Afghanistan is “increasingly stable and independent”
  

  Timeout for Truth:

  Friday September 8, 2006

  Nato’s top commander appealed yesterday for helicopters, planes and hundreds of extra troops to reinforce the alliance’s Afghan force against the Taliban. Returning from a visit to Afghanistan, General James Jones admitted he had been taken aback by the ferocity of violence in the south of the country.
  (from Guardian UK)

• encourages students to debate “whether the media helps or hurts our national security.”
  

  Hmmm… debate whether the media is a threat. I can just hear whoever cobbled this dreck together: “Does it get kids to question the Constitutional right to freedom of the press? Yessir! Check. Next…”

• Lists all the pertinent government agencies, stating that the CIA and FBI were accused of not doing enough to prevent the attacks. No such reference is included in the “National Security Council” section or the “NSA” section.
  

  Note: NSA was run by Condoleeza Rice when 9/11 occurred, and she insisted that she ignored the plan to prevent terrorist attacks, which had been provided by the Clinton transition team, because it was an “historic” document. As if having been written in the past magically removes its value. Hint for Condoleeza: all documents were written in the past.

• Gives a rundown of each country involved in the movie, no mention is made of Clinton’s attempts to get bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather, it states that “after 9/11”, we asked the Taliban to hand him over.
  

  Leaves out Saudi Arabia, which provided 15 of the 19 hijackers. Also includes Iraq as a country that was part of 9/11. Also ignores Taliban offer to hand over bin Laden pre-war.

• Under “Iraq”, the document states that the U.S. “believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against Americans and other targets.”  But, conveniently, there is NO mention that WMD were never found, leaving students with the impression that the war was justified.
  

  See here for a discussion of Just War Principles v. Iraq

• Also under “Iraq”, the document states that the US is still in Iraq, “battling insurgents who want the United States to pull out.”  No mention of civil war, no mention of how Iraqis want us out, no mention of anything but a phrase which leaves students thinking that if someone suggests a pull out, they are siding with the insurgents.
  

  I don’t really need to comment here, the original says it all.

• Under “Pakistan,” you’ll find glowing praise for Pervez Musharraf.
  

  The Musharraf dictatorship doles out ostensible support in the war on terror to keep it in the good graces of Washington, while it presides over a society that fuels and empowers militants at the expense of moderates. And the political madrasas, which I spent years as prime minister dismantling, flourish and grow under the military dictatorship. Why is it that the terrorist trail always seems to lead back to Pakistan? Why are second-generation Pakistani emigres far more attracted by this pattern of terrorism than other disillusioned Muslims in the west? What is it about Islamabad that puts it at the centre of terrorist plots?

  – former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

The curriculum has reportedly already been shipped to 100,000 teachers around the country.

What Can We Do?
Propagandizing is bad enough, but indoctrinating our kids with it is beyond the pale. Making their class grades depend on learning the propaganda is abhorrent.

Cheating our children out of the truth and betraying their trust is not an American value. Covering up failure makes it impossible to prevent a repeat. This dishonors all who have died, it is  not an American value.

If you’re as pissed off about this as I am, there are a bunch of easy steps you can take. Please see this diary on Daily Kos for a zillion bits of contact info. It’ll take just a couple of minutes to write an email or make a phone call.

Be sure to be polite!  The people answering the phone or reading the email are not the people who are trying to promote blatant propaganda and force feed it to our children, plus you “attract more flies with honey” and all that…

If You Are a Parent with Kids in the Public Schools – A Special Task

Please contact your school board, the school principle, your child’s history and reading teachers, and your PTA. Let them know you do not want your child to be subject to this propaganda.

Ask the school to contact their Scholastic sales representative to discuss changing distributors unless this is corrected.

I know this is a VERY long post, but it only scratches the surface and barely sketches out a hint of the outright falsehoods in this movie. Please see here for a list of articles debunking the movie’s claims.

The GOP primary is almost upon us, and in the US Senate race, it seems to be a coronation for Rich Tarrant. His opponent, if you hadn’t noticed (and few have) is Greg Parke. Greg Parke, as you can see from his website, has some opinions.

And Tarrant? Well, we know he thinks Bernie Sanders is all about child molesters and drug dealers. I suppose that sort of counts as an opinion. But he’s gotten some flak in the past for not sharing his views on anything besides his personal impression of Bernie. Now given that we’re down to a matter of weeks before the election, one would assume that he’s thought about the issues of the day – besides his personal animosity towards Bernie – and perhaps might feel obliged to, y’know, tell the voters what he thinks about stuff.

Hoo-boy. Guess again. Here are his answers from his interview for Vermont Woman Magazine. And by all means, if you think I’m somehow taking these out of context, please click on the link and check for yourself (emphasis below added)…

He answered almost a dozen questions by asking for more specifics or saying he didn’t have enough information yet. Those questions included, in part:

Q: Can you comment on the FDA’s ongoing rulemaking process regarding access to Plan B over-the-counter by women over the age of 16?

I’m not opposed to contraception […] I’m not up to  date on it […] I’d have to know the pros and cons and understand the argument from both sides and I’m not read up on what the FDA is doing.

Q: Do you support continuing or increasing federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education?

It depends on what the program is. Can you be more specific? Are you talking a program that teaches contraception? I need more specifics.

More specific than “abstinence-only“???

Q: Do you support President Bush’s reinstatement of the global gag rule?
I need to see that language.

Q: Do you have any additional comments on President Bush’s use of presidential signing statements? Do you support Sen. Arlen Specter’s recently introduced legislation prohibiting them?

I’d have to look at each one individually, I couldn’t possibly, I mean, they are there for a reason […] I wouldn’t want to pick one side or the other, I think the concept is good.

Q: Do you support the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare? Should this doctrine be judged on our experience in Iraq?

I’d have to dig into it, but if North Korea launched a missile and they said it was a test, but we didn’t know, I’d say we pick that out of the air as soon as possible. […] I think preemptive has to be defined.

Preemptive: adjective 1. of or pertaining to preemption. 
2. taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival. 

Oh, but there’s more…

Q: Would you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

In general, I don’t believe in discrimination based on any sexual orientation, but I would have to look at it.

In response to a follow-up email several weeks later that included more information for his reference, Tarrant declined to comment further on any of the above questions.

When asked if he supported more restrictive legislation, like the recently passed [abortion] ban in South Dakota that will likely reach the Supreme Court, he said, “I would support whatever the Supreme Court comes up with. As a U.S. Senator, I would not have any say in it. Whichever way the Supreme Court goes would be the law of the land.”

As for LGBT servicemen and women and the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Tarrant was undecided. “I’ve been thinking about that, but I don’t have an answer at the moment.

Tarrant ended our interview by saying, “The reason I think I would be a better senator, is I’d be thoughtful. I want to know both sides of every issue. […] I’m not going down there to preach to the Senate or bang on tables when I don’t get my way. […] That is the primary difference between myself and my opponent.” And while his inclination for evidence is admirable, and likely essential for successful business deals, Tarrant’s discomfort with holding an opinion on a topic without hard data is disconcerting in a senatorial candidate who could conceivably be asked to weigh in on abstract and theoretical issues with very real consequences, like the definition of torture and war crimes, the balance between a free press and national security, and the limits of a Roe v. Wade-defined right to privacy.

And if you want to wince even more, compare his answers to those offered by every other candidate interviewed of either party for each of the major offices in play. He’s got a few opinions scattered about in there, but more than a few issues tend to fall in the laps of Senators.

Hey GOP… don’t get me wrong, we’re happy to have this guy thrown at us, but…yeesh. Are you sure you wanna go there? I mean, there’s still a few days to think about it…

[PS – David at Bernie’s campaign blog is clever-er than I am on this thing… go check it out]

(UPDATE, 1/18/2009: This is a diary on its 4th appearance- first at dKos, then crossed over here after a time, and then re-posted again last year. It’s not that I think its so great, but its a message I’m determined to get out into the world, and every now and then something brings it up.

But the whole thing reminded me again of how Christian “traditionalists” have no understanding of their own tradition, and of how the church hierarchy has dishonestly overwritten it an almost Orwellian, the-enemy-has-always-been-Eurasia, manner.   – promoted by odum)

From a diary of mine at Daily Kos from the pre-GMD days (hopefully the links are still good):

Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

It’s a day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and we may be about to see an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court.

The media has had very little to say on this 33rd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, but what more do they need to say? We know the narrative. Slowly but surely, the “liberal” states – as part of a process of public secularization, expanded access to abortion. Finally, in an archetypal liberal decision – Roe v Wade – this secularization and the process moving away from tradition into a more “enlightened” public sphere was federalized uniformly nationwide, whether or not the more traditional states wanted it. What we’ve seen unfold is a steady backlash that has been returning this issue (and others) into a more traditionally Christian context — basically, “Christian traditionalists vs. liberals” – advantage them…. right?

What do you think? This is the media’s narrative, and has been for some time. So naturally, this is wrong, wrong, wrong, and the longer we’ve let them get away with it, the more tenuous our position has become.

As with any history, its complicated – but suffice to say there has rarely – if ever – been consensus on the issue. Still, this history informs the debate, and the false history that’s now been fully riveted into the brains of the American public is one of the anti-choice movement’s most powerful weapons, even if they’re ignorant of it themselves (which – in most cases – I’m willing to bet they are).

Here’s a nutshell version with some links to follow for more details.

Few influenced the perspective of the early church more than Aristotle, and the Aristotelean view of the soul in the unborn was the “delayed ensoulment” – that is, the fetus isn’t animated with a human soul until 40 days after conception for males, 90 days for females – both having a vegetable soul before then. In fact, there are early Greek texts and advice on how to perform abortion, so this is the history that Aristotle’s views emerged from and which informed early Christian thinking.

When the Church became more organized, opinions started changing. As a theological narrative took shape in th mid 2nd Century into the 4th, more Christian thinkers began to equate abortion with infanticide. St. John Chrysostom called it “murder before the birth” (Homily 24 on Romans).  Worth noting here is that thinkers like St. Jerome (infamous for, among other things, blaming women for the fall from grace) and St John Chrysostom (women are “a necessary evil”) are also responsible for hardwiring some of the most disturbingly anti-woman theology into early Christianity – presenting women as something other than human, and sexuality as evil, or at least the pathway to evil. It’s no coincidence that, even at this early date, anti-choice extremism goes hand-in-hand with misogyny.  Still even Jerome – while saying some of the most awful garbage about women in recorded history, was not as hardcore about abortion as today’s Religious Right, writing “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs (“Epistle” (121, 4))”

Neither were early church organizational meetings unanimous. The Synods of Elvira and Ancyra (306 ACE, 314 ACE) explicitly called abortion a sin, while the Apostolic Constitutions (380 ACE) disallowed it only after the fetus took on a “human shape.”

Although eastern Christianity vectored toward an absolutist stand, the western church did not. St. Augustine refocused the church on the Aristotelan delayed ensoulment model (“On Exodus”, (21, 80)), and by this time the church was a much more defined hierarchy, leaving less room for disagreement.

In the early 7th Century, the Church began codifying what it considered sexual sins and abortion made the list, but was well behind the “sins” of birth control, oral sex, and anal sex. In fact, the punishment for oral sex was at least 7 years of penance, while the punishment for abortion was a mere 120 days.

In the centuries that followed, Popes came on the scene with widely varying viewpoints – changing and re-changing the rules as the mitre passed on. Significantly, Pope Innocent III in the early 1200s ruled that the fetus had no soul until it was “animated” (the “quickening” – when the mother can feel the fetus’ movements, usually around the 24th week). In his ruling – and this is significant — a monk was found not guilty of homicide for aborting his lover’s unborn child under this argument. Pope Sixtus V in 1588 made all abortions illegal, but was reversed again by Pope Gregory XIV, codifying abortions at up to 16 ½ weeks as not equivalent to the killing of a human being, as no soul was present.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas himself – arguably the most influential theologian in Roman Catholic Christianity, did not consider a fetus human until the quickening.

This was the way it was for the most part until – and are you sitting down for this? – 1869. That’s when Pope Pius IX declared all abortion to be homicide. That’s right, for nearly the entire history of Christianity, the Catholic Church was officially tolerant of first trimester abortion. The change was well after the Enlightenment, after the Civil War, and into the modern scientific era. In fact, it was only as recently as 1983 that all vestiges of the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus” were quietly purged from Canon Law. (Yes, that was 1983… only 23 years ago)

So much for the traditional Christians versus those pesky godless, postmodern liberals, eh?

And its not just the Catholics, but Protestants as well. English Common Law did not recognize abortion as a crime before quickening, and was only a misdemeanor afterwards. This began changing in 1803 with a series of changes to the written Law, but it is largely this fact that has lead many legal scholars  to suggest that Roe v Wade should have been argued based on English Common Law rather than a debatable, “inferred” right of privacy.

Of course these scholars make the argument based on legality, but I’d argue such a common-law based decision would have, perhaps more importantly, gone a long way to framing the debate. After all, it would be far more difficult to perpetuate the notion that a right to an abortion is based on the whims of “liberal activist judges” if it was based on arguments that rise from the very foundations of our American legal system.

So anyway, the point is that WE are the “traditionalists” here, and the supposedly monolithic, unchanging, “old-fashioned” party line from the Catholic Church and other protestant institutions are anything but traditional and unchanging.

The next time you hear a politically conservative Catholic saying that anyone suggesting that abortion may be permissible publicly should be denied Communion, ask them if that would include Saints Jerome, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

FYI: There are a lot of links on the web for more detailed back ground information. I drew a lot of my information from the nice tidy roundup at this site, But this one, this one, and this one are fantastic, as well as this site on the Common Law issue.

So what’s up with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Bush’s orchestgrated new reference point linking their war to 1939 and WW2 against the Nazis. (Interesting that this rhetoric seems to be a replacement for analogies to the Cold War against godless communism.) There are a lot of semiotics in that language:
1. The Nazis were evil people, therefore, our opponents are evil people.
2. The Nazis were the aggressors that started WW2, therefore our opponents are the aggressors in this war.
3. The Nazis were anti-Semitic racists who persecuted the Jews, therefore opposition to Israel’s policies in Labanon and the occupied territories is anti-Semitic and racist.
4. The world was united (except for Italy, Japan and for a while the Soviet Union) against the bad guys and won, therefore, if the world – especially US voters – would unite in support of the Bushies against the bad guys, we will “win.”
5. Appeasement in 1939 encouraged the Nazis to invade Poland and begin WW2, therefore  “appeasement” (i.e. US withdrawal from Iraq) will encourage more attacks on us.
6. The legal climate of a Congressionally formally declared war against sovereign nations allowed FDR to do things that would never have been allowed otherwise – e.g. interning Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps, holding military tribunals, instituting a draft…, therefore Bush should have the same authorities in the war against terrorism.

None of these associations are made explicit in the speeches, and they are so wrong at so many levels, they fall apart under even the most superficial historical scrutiny, but the unspoken associations have power that shapes attitudes.  And these guys know how to shape the debate using this kind of rhetoric.

On the day of Barbara Bush’s visit to Vermont, we get to see a hint of why this morning’s Times Argus reported that the DCCC may be scaling down their plans for a media buy in Vermont on behalf of Congressional candidate Peter Welch (scary that Washington may be relaxing a bit on this one!), and why beltway elections guru Stuart Rothenberg has reclassified the VT-AL race from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic.” Here’s part of the graphic layout of Constituent Dynamics’ latest poll on the race (go check out their site, it’s pretty nifty):

Now clearly this poll is welcome news, but it should be approached cautiously. For one thing, the poll based on approximately 1000 voters has a good geographic spread, and the subjects were all registered voters, but they were not identified as likely voters. Also – the poll did not specifically name Martha Rainville, but rather the Republican candidate, given that there’s a primary. This makes the whole poll sketchier.

Still, it’s good news for sure – and some of the above concerns are at least partly offset by the “voter motivation index” (based on a “how likely are you to vote” on a scale of 1-9 poll question) which shows Democrats and Independents both more motivated than Republicans to vote in November (and looking at that 25 point approval rating for Bush, is it any wonder?)

Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, the GOP always seems to “close the deal” better than Dems on Election Day – and anyone who remembers the Freeps poll three days out giving Doug Racine a 10 point lead over Jim Douglas in 2002 understands that no poll should ever give us cause to think we can take anything for granted.

Still, good news is always welcome…