Why should African-Americans support Badnarik / Campagna?
* Repeal federal regulations that prevent African Americans from starting their own businesses * End the War on Drugs which targets young black men * End taxes so African Americans have the resources to invest and start businesses and provide their children with quality education. * Opposes racial profiling * Advocates the right to keep and bear arms so that African Americans can defend themselves where police response is inadequate.
Fact: Badnarik is campaigning in New Mexico August 8-15th Fact: Badnarik TV and Radio commercials are running statewide now Fact: Badnarik polled 5% in New Mexico on August 4th Fact: Bush and Kerry were "even" in New Mexico until August 4th, when Kerry pulled ahead 48% to 43% Fact: Bush announced on Saturday that he was coming to Albuquerque
Did Kerry Save More Lives as a Protester Than As a Warrior?
Did Kerry Save More Lives as a Protester Than As a Warrior? August 9, 2004 | 3:30 p.m.
God bless the "forward" button. From a friend of a friend, Swami received a fascinating e-mail late last week, tracked down the author, and got permission to publish this...
John Kerry saved my life.
In 1971, as a lost 17-year-old with no future, I was about to enlist in the Navy. I had no illusions about saving the world from the "domino theory" or the Red menace. Like countless others, then and now, I saw military service as a way out, a free education and a shot at the G.I. bill.
Then I heard about Kerry's congressional testimony as a Vietnam Veteran Against the War. Not only did his passionate and eloquent testimony profoundly influence the course of our involvement in that misbegotten and mismanaged war, it changed the course of my life in a way I couldn't truly appreciate or understand for years.
For a man to go before Congress and declare, with chilling documentation, that the country he loves and nearly gave his life to defend is on the wrong course and must change--as he is rightfully doing now--is the height of patriotism.
Contrary to the partisan attacks of his detractors--the veteran "brothers" who claim to have served with him but didn't, and who insist his valor is a lie--John Kerry's anti-war activism took more courage than anything that happened on his swift boat.
In effect, he pulled me and possibly thousands of others like me from the water, saving us from being the last ones to "die for a mistake."
--James Morrison
And what, you may ask, did James Morrison do instead of going to Vietnam?
This:
My father, though firm about my "duty to serve if called," wasn't sure he wanted to sign for me to enlist. My mother pleaded with me to reconsider and finish high school (which I did). They'd already had one son, my older brother, serve a tour in Vietnam. He came home safely, but it wasn't a hell either of them wanted to revisit if they could help it.
We were living in Anchorage then. Whenever the subject of the draft came up, my mother volunteered to pack me a really big lunch and drive me to the Canadian border if my number was called. When the Veterans Against the War started protesting in earnest, most of my friends were relieved--to put it mildly--as the draft loomed in the next year or so for all of us.
In the year following Kerry's testimony, I decided to become an actor and couldn't see how being in any branch of the armed forces could further that career path in any practical sense. The draft ended when I was 19, and that, thank God, was that.
I've since become one of the rarest actors: one who makes a living at it. I'm also a Hatha yoga instructor, teaching and learning peace, and, in the last five years, a father. If they ever come for my son, they'll have to pry him from my cold, dead hands.
-James Morrison
Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha.
Copyrighting the President Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha. By Lawrence Lessig
The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is "free." But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?
Though Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has grabbed the headlines, another documentary is at the center of this debate. In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, NBC's Sunday morning talk show. In the clip, the president defends his decision to go to war - astonishingly unconvincingly.
Greenwald asked NBC for permission to run the one-minute clip - offering to pay for the right, as he had done for every other clip that appears in the film. NBC said no. The network explained to his agent that the clip is "not very flattering to the president." Greenwald included it anyway.
Copyright law gives NBC the power to deny anyone the use of its content, at least presumptively. If you want to rebroadcast Meet the Press or sell copies on the Internet, you need NBC's permission. There are exceptions, at least in theory. The law, for example, exempts "fair uses" of copyrighted material from the control of its owner. If a clip is short enough, or if its use is sufficiently transformative or critical, then the law allows its use, whether permission is granted or not.
In practice, however, the matter isn't that simple. Because copyright law is so uncertain, and because insurance companies that indemnify films don't much like risk, the practice among auteurs seeking major distribution is to cut any clip for which permission isn't granted - fair use notwithstanding. The costs of defending a fair use right in court - and, more important, the costs if any such defense should fail - make the risk prohibitive for most filmmakers. Defense of fair use could run hundreds of thousands of dollars - several times the budget of a typical documentary. And losing this type of claim could expose the filmmaker to $150,000 in damages for each copyright infringed. In a world in which Fox News sues comedian and author Al Franken for parodying "fair and balanced," a cautious director can't be too careful.
Greenwald's struggle demonstrates a more fundamental point. Many are concerned about the ever-expanding reach of copyright law. More are concerned about the ever-increasing concentration of the media. Greenwald's dilemma highlights how the two trends are linked: As media becomes more concentrated, competition to curry favor with politicians only increases. This intensifies during an election cycle. Networks able to signal that they will be "friendly" - for example, by ensuring that embarrassing moments from interviews won't be made available to others - are more likely to attract candidates for interviews and so on, than networks that don't. Concentration tied to copyright thus gives networks both the motive and the means to protect favored guests.
NBC insists it is remaining "neutral" by denying others use of the interview. But there's nothing neutral about restricting either critics or supporters from repeating the president's words. But the issue here isn't really NBC's motive. It is the president's. Why would any president allow a network to copyright his message? No self-respecting president would speak at a club that excluded women: Whatever rights a private organization may enjoy, a president stands for equality. So why did the current leader of the free world, who rarely holds press conferences, agree to speak on a talk show that refuses to license on a neutral basis the content he contributed? Is vigorous debate over matters as important as going to war less important than protecting his image?
This question is crucial, and thus Greenwald has decided to defend his fair use right, even if it means staring down a bunch of lawyers in court. The argument: It's hard to tell "the whole truth" about the Iraq war when you censor bits of that truth because a network tells you to. But what this incident demonstrates most is what many increasingly fear. Concentrated media and expansive copyright are the perfect storm not just for stifling debate but, increasingly, for weakening democracy as well.
Email Lawrence Lessig at lawrence_lessig@wiredmag.com.
The quiz below was submitted by Kevin Houston. Posted by Stephen Gordon.
For each question below, please write the name of the candidate for which the statement is true.
1) Which candidate received nearly $1 million from donors connected with both Citigroup Inc. and the National Association of Realtors?
2) Which candidate is a multi-millionaire?
3) Which candidate owns: Between $1000 and $15000 worth of Intel and Microsoft stock? Between $15000 and $50000 worth of Proctor and Gamble stock?
4) Which candidate has promised to: a - Spend tax money to create new jobs? b - Spend tax money to collect data on everyone in order to find terrorists? c - Pay for health care for uninsured children with tax money? d -Dramatically increase federal funding for colleges, senior high schools, and elementary schools? e - Support creation of a single head for all intelligence agencies? f - Continue a US military presence in Iraq until Iraq is a stable democracy? g - Continue the failing war on drugs? h - Impose tariffs as a solution to jobs moving overseas?
5) Which candidate supports not allowing homosexuals to marry?
6) Which candidate's father: Flew airplanes during W.W.II? Worked in the foreign service as a diplomat?
7) Which candidate belonged to the elite, secret "Skull and Bones" club at Yale?
8) Which candidate supports extending the assault weapons ban?
The answer to every one of these questions (and many others besides) is:
BOTH
That's right, BOTH George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is the correct answer to all of these questions.
#2 and #3 Personal financial disclosure of the candidates http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000807 2_2002.pdf" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000807 2_2002.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.opensecrets.org/pf... http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000024 5_2002.pdf" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000024 5_2002.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.opensecrets.org/pf...
#4 Issues of the candidates from their own web site. http://www.georgewbush.com/" title="http://www.georgewbush.com/" target="_blank"http://www.georgewbush.com/ http://www.johnkerry.com/issu...
Kerry Declares Democrats the Party of “Belief Without Evidence”
- Sun, Aug 1, 2004
Boston, Massachusetts, July 31, 2004 Special to The Raving Atheist
Vowing to supplant the Republicans as the “party of faith,” presidential hopeful John Kerry announced Thursday night that the Democratic Party would heretofore formulate all its policies by reference to vague, undefined and completely unsubstantiated supernatural beliefs. “Let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith,” Kerry said in his convention acceptance speech at Boston’s Fleet Center. “In particular, we welcome people whose thoughts are completely untethered from reality and logic. We will strive to be the party of belief without evidence, and, if possible, belief contrary to all evidence.”
Quoting Abraham Lincoln, Kerry noted that it was important to pray that we be on God’s side rather than to have God on our side. “Although in either case God and we are on the same side, the important thing is to make a pious, dramatic-sounding, meaningless distinction about our ideological alignment with a supreme deity and insist it has some impact on our ‘values,’” Kerry said. “And more importantly, let us remember that it does not matter which position anyone takes on a particular moral issue, so long as the resulting “value” is attributed to baseless speculation about the desires of some nebulous being no one has ever seen, heard or otherwise detected.” Kerry added that “faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday” and that he prays every day that he was on God’s side when he committed atrocities in as a soldier in Southeast Asia.
Kerry faulted President Bush for relying on intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction. “Faith requires less, much less,” he said. The Senator endorsed the call of 9/11 Commission for more “imagination,” stating that foreign policy decisions should be based on a “wild, unbridled imagination which readily attaches itself to any passing, God-related delusional fantasy.” If elected, Kerry said, he would act decisively to push back the invasion by hordes of pogo-stick-bound cockatoos over the Bering Straits. He also vowed to replace the Republicans once-popular “Contract with America with a “Pre-Nup with America,” a document modeled on his own prenuptial agreement with his billionaire second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
how do Christians feel when an atheist gives the invocation?
Atheists still have to sit through prayers to God at the beginning of town council meetings, although they’ve recently been spared from Jesus talk. But how do Christians feel when an atheist gives the invocation? A member of Atheists of Florida opened the Tampa City Council yesterday, in response to an invitation by a Jewish councilman a couple of weeks ago. At the time, one of the legislators was quizzical but open-minded:
Councilwoman Mary Alvarez said she looks forward to hearing an atheist's version of an invocation.
"Who is he going to pray to?'' asked Alvarez, a Christian. "It's a free country . . . Whatever floats your boat.''
And how did the boat float yesterday? Kinda looks like it sank:
Half of the Tampa City Council walked out Thursday when an atheist spoke at a time usually reserved for prayer.
Other council members bowed their heads out of habit, anticipating an “Amen'” that wouldn't come.
Letting atheist Michael Harvey lead the invocation Thursday almost brought the council meeting to a stop before it began.
As Harvey, a member of Atheists of Florida, prepared to speak, Councilman Kevin White called for a vote to find a different person to pray or to skip the invocation that traditionally begins council meetings.
White, who cast the only vote for his proposal, said he objected to a “hallowed moment'' being turned over to someone to make a “political statement.''
What was Harvey’s “political statement”? He asked the board “to seek inspiration from history, science and logic.” Did Councilwoman Alvarez defend him? Not exactly. “I [don't] have to sit here and listen to an atheist tell me what I should and shouldn't believe,'' she said. And according to this Associated Press account, she actually voted with Councilman White to throw the atheist out, calling White “very brave" for making the effort and adding "I just can't sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being."
And apparently that means any Supreme Being. Here Alvarez is cutting the ribbon at the opening ceremony for the new home of Tampa’s Church of Scientology -- which teaches that we’re all stuffed with the souls of dead space aliens murdered and brought to Earth by the evil galactic ruler Xenu 75 million years ago. So what if Xenu packed the souls into boxes and took them to huge cinemas where they had to spend days watching special 3D movies which brainwashed them with false stories about God, the Devil and Christ -- he’s still better, in Alvarez’ book, than history, science and logic.
Democrats should reimburse taxpayers $40 million for their convention
WASHINGTON -- In light of a surprising new poll showing that 62 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded conventions, Libertarians say the Democratic Party should immediately reimburse taxpayers for the $40 million cost of staging their Boston event.
"Let's hope the American people love this convention, because they paid for it," says Libertarian Party National Chair Mike Dixon. "There's something terribly wrong when two rich guys running for office can force ordinary Americans to pay for their televised advertising campaign.
"If John Kerry and John Edwards really care about the little guy, here's their chance to prove it: Give the money back."
The organizers of the Democratic and Republican national conventions have each received checks for $14.5 million from the Federal Election Commission to finance their events. That, combined with an estimated $25 million in security costs that each will incur, means that taxpayers will foot the bill for nearly $40 million for each event.
The Libertarian convention, held over Memorial Day weekend in Atlanta, was financed entirely with private funds.
"In a Rasmussen poll released on Sunday, Americans made it clear that they want to kick politicians off the welfare wagon," Dixon said.
The survey, commissioned by the Libertarian Party, asked: "Should tax money be spent to stage the Democrat and Republican national presidential nominating conventions?" An overwhelming majority of 62 percent said no, 24 percent said yes and 14 percent weren't sure.
Libertarians are proposing two alternatives to taxpayer-financed conventions:
One: Let corporate sponsors and other donors, who already gave a record $103.5 million to the two major parties' host committees, pick up the entire tab.
Dixon said: "Former Democratic National Chairman Don Fowler is quoted as saying, 'Some of the best lobbying in the world is done at these conventions. It is a tremendous boon for special interests.'
"As long as Democrats and Republicans have something to sell, special interests will have something to buy. It's better to charge these fatcats up-front than to send taxpayers the bill for their weeklong bribe-a-thon."
Two: Make Kerry and Edwards pay the $40 million personally.
"Kerry's personal fortune is estimated at $60 million, and Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial lawyer, so both can afford it," Dixon noted.
"It's simply outrageous for these two wealthy politicians to bilk ordinary Americans to pay for an event at which they're scheming for yet more ways to bilk us if they get elected. They should have the decency to give the money back."
HOT SECOND: LIBERTARIANS THE NEW POLITICAL CENTER?
Press Release HOT SECOND: LIBERTARIANS THE NEW POLITICAL CENTER? ========================= ========== Badnarik/Campagna 2004 6633 Highway 290 East, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78714-0226 Phone: 1-800-807-7552 Fax: (512) 419-7023 ========================= ========== For release: July 29, 2004 ========================= ========== For additional information: Stephen Gordon, Communications Director Phone: (256)227-8360 E-mail:communications@bad narik.org ========================= ==========
Austin, TX -- If the presidential election was held today, only three of one hundred Americans would vote for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. But he's the second choice of more than four in 10.
According to a nationwide survey of 1,000 American adults conducted last week by Rasmussen, Democratic challenger John Kerry (D-MA) leads incumbent president George W. Bush by a slim margin of 46-43% -- within the 3% margin of error.
However, when polled on their second choice, 43% of voters chose Badnarik rather than their first choice's main rival.
Badnarik is not surprised. "The American electorate is extremely polarized this year," he says. "And the Libertarian Party arguably constitutes the new center of the debate. The Democrats and Republicans stand at two extremes, characterized by which parts of our lives they emphasize their desire to control. Libertarians reject both extremes in favor of the government leaving control of your life to you."
The Libertarian Party's emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility cuts across traditional party lines -- and may prove decisive in this election.
"With Michael Badnarik's candidacy, the Libertarian Party is finally coming into its own right as an arbiter of political power," says campaign manager Fred Collins. "Win or lose, we're now enough of a factor that Republican and Democratic politicians will have to fight us for the swing votes that we control. That's good for liberty, because fighting us for those votes means adopting our agenda."
"Second choices" don't count on election day, but Badnarik's 3% showing covers the margin of error at the poll's middle and his strength in several "battleground" states may determine the election's outcome. Bush and Kerry remain closely matched in New Mexico, Arizona, Ohio and other states. In 2000, Harry Browne's 2,000-odd votes changed the outcome in New Mexico to George W. Bush's detriment (Democrat Al Gore carried the state by about 300 votes). Browne's 16,000 votes in Florida helped throw that state's decision into question.
The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party. More than 600 Libertarians serve in public office at the local, state and federal level.
With the Democratic National Convention halfway over, and the Republican National Convention right around the corner, the campaign season is just about to go into full swing. If you think you've seen a lot of campaign ads so far, you just wait. In the coming months, they'll be taking over your TV.
So this strikes me as a good time to review some of the tactics frequently used by politicians and others (including news organizations, documentary filmmakers, television and radio talk show hosts, etc) to sway public opinion through the use of deliberately deceptive or misleading information.
That's right, I'm talking about propaganda.
Propaganda (from Latin, literally "things to be propagated") didn't always have a negative connotation. In the 17th century, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregation for Propagating the Faith, a group of Cardinals who sent missionaries to propagate Christianity. It wasn't until World War I that propaganda became used in a political sense, and a negative connotation became associated with it.
In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis was created, composed of social scientists and journalists, to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. The IPA outlined an oft-cited list of seven basic propaganda devices the public should be aware of and watch out for.
Some of them will seem familiar if you've taken courses in Critical Thinking, as they are very similar to well-known fallacious arguments. Even if you've never taken a Critical Thinking course in your life, you may recognize some of these techniques from, well, politics. The candidates routinely criticize each other for using some of these basic propaganda devices:
1. Name-Calling The IPA said of name-calling, "Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races."
Name-calling is used to connect a person (or thing) to a negative symbol. The person doing so hopes you will reject the person based on your association with the symbol, instead of based on actual evidence. In World War II, names like Commie or Jap were common in propaganda. In the years since, we've seen Queer used the same way. And even today, Liberal, Socialist, and Evil-Doer are names thrown about in a propagandist manner by our politicians and pundits. Indeed, at least one news organization has even been using "French" as a Name-Calling device.
Those of you who did take Critical Thinking classes will recognize Name-Calling as an argumentum ad hominem, a form of fallacious argument that is an attack against a person rather than his or her idea.
2. Glittering Generalities This is what the IPA wrote about Glittering Generalities in 1938:
We believe in, fight for, live by virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas. Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, and love.
For our purposes in propaganda analysis, we call these virtue words "Glittering Generalities" in order to focus attention upon this dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; they can be used in different ways.
This is not a criticism of these words as we understand them. Quite the contrary. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.
When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and in church. Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our 'sales resistance' and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.'
The Glittering Generality is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. In acquainting ourselves with the Glittering Generality Device, therefore, all that has been said regarding Name Calling must be kept in mind.
Glittering generalities are practically a cornerstone of political advertising. If you haven't noticed it before, you will now.
3. Transfer This one is so obvious, it's almost easy to overlook. Transfer, according to the IPA, is when someone "carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept."
The website Propaganda Critic offers the following examples of Transfer:
When a political activist closes her speech with a public prayer, she is attempting to transfer religious prestige to the ideas that she is advocating. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. It can be found in the speeches of liberation theologists on the left, and in the sermons of religious activists on the right.
In a similar fashion, propagandists may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cough drop encourages audiences to "Visit the halls of medicine." On TV commercials, actors in white lab coats tell us that the "Brand X is the most important pain reliever that can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is at work.
These techniques can also take a more ominous turn. As Alfred Lee has argued, "even the most flagrantly anti-scientific racists are wont to dress up their arguments at times with terms and carefully selected illustrations drawn from scientific works and presented out of all accurate context." The propaganda of Nazi Germany, for example, rationalized racist policies by appealing to both science and religion.
This does not mean that religion and science have no place in discussions about social issues! The point is that an idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity.
4. Testimonial Testimonial is a tricky one because it's not always a bad thing. To the contrary, citing a source is generally a good idea, and testimonials can be used to construct excellent arguments.
The problem comes when the testimonial comes from an unqualified source, or is otherwise irrelevant when one person's experience is not enough on which to base a decision.
For example, I saw a famous actor on television today endorsing a candidate. I know that some people think he's a really good actor, and he's made some rather entertaining movies. He even won an Academy Award. But why is his endorsement of the candidate any more important than anybody else's?
Another example. I used MapQuest to drive cross-country, and it gave me terrible directions. Based on that, I can tell you that MapQuest is awful.
The use of a celebrity endorsement, or the story of one person's experience to put forth a position are examples of Testimonial propaganda.
5. Plain Folks Aw, shucks. Those candidates are just like you and me. At least, that's what they try to get across, despite the fact that they're multimillionaires and we aren't.
When you see George W. Bush doing chores on his ranch, or when you saw Bill Clinton eating McDonald's, they may both have been doing things that they actually enjoy, but the fact that you heard about it is an example of the Plain Folks device.
When the candidates go along the campaign trail, talking to people in Middle America, they are trying very hard to make people see them as Plain Folks.
6. Card Stacking Card Stacking is where an argument which seems logical is used, often in conjunction with other propaganda techniques meant to hide the poor logic, and especially where fear is a key ingredient.
As Propaganda Critic explains, "there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior."
Does this sound familiar to anyone? Did any of you go out and buy duct tape and plastic bags when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said it might save your life in case of a chemical or biological attack?
In our current political climate, I'm sure you can think of countless other examples of fear appeals being used in political propaganda.
7. Band Wagon Here's how the IPA described the Band Wagon device:
The propagandist hires a hall, rents radio stations, fills a great stadium, marches a million or at least a lot of men in a parade. He employs symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. He gets us to write letters, to send telegrams, to contribute to his cause. He appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd. Because he wants us to follow the crowd in masses, he directs his appeal to groups held together already by common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, sex, vocation. Thus propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners.
With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus is emotion made to push and pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon.
In other words, "Everybody else is doing it. So should you." Nobody wants to be left out, so when people hear that their peers are all voting for so-and-so or buying that such-and-such or going to here-or-there, they all want to jump on the Band Wagon.
Often, we recognize propaganda when we see it. We scoff at the pundit on TV and say, "I can't believe they expect me to believe this crap." But sometimes, it might sneak past your radar. So keep this overview in mind as the next few months play out, and see how many of these 7 propaganda techniques you can spot.
And if you find any new ones that don't fall under the categories outlined by the IPA, share them in the comments section below.
[Bonus: For hours of historic propaganda fun, check out the Prelinger Archives at the Internet Archive, and do a keyword search for "propaganda." You can find classics like the old Duck and Cover cold war propaganda film (featuring Bert the Turtle), and much more.]
UPDATE: This just seems like an opportune moment to once again promote the Annendale Political Fact Check, a nonpartisan organization that scrutinizes political advertisements for accuracy. I first wrote about them back in April, but I know many of you haven't been reading this website that long. I highly recommend checking out their archives and signing up for their e-mail alerts, especially if you're in a swing state, where you're more likely to see these ads. They do a good job of separating the facts and the rhetoric. It's very interesting seeing an ad on TV and then getting an e-mail explaining where the candidates' claims come from, and what the truth is behind them.
MARIJUANA PROPOSAL: ACLU sues, tries to save initiative
MARIJUANA PROPOSAL: ACLU sues, tries to save initiative
Group alleges unreasonable restrictions By CARRI GEER THEVENOT REVIEW-JOURNAL
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and supporters of the marijuana-regulation initiative filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday that seeks to restore the measure in time for this year's general election.
Accompanying the lawsuit was an emergency motion for a court order that would force Secretary of State Dean Heller to place the initiative on the November ballot.
Although more than 66,000 registered voters signed petitions for the initiative, according to the motion, officials are preventing the measure from appearing on the ballot "based on a raft of unreasonable, purposeless and unconstitutional restrictions."
To qualify for the 2004 general election, the initiative petition needed the signatures of 51,337 registered voters by June 15.
Heller announced two weeks ago that supporters of the initiative, which seeks to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, had failed to secure enough valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Steve George, Heller's spokesman, said officials at the secretary of state's office needed more time to review the lawsuit before commenting on it.
"I'm quite sure that we will put together a very good argument against the lawsuit, but I can't speak to the merits of it at this time," George said Tuesday.
The ACLU of Nevada filed the complaint with the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, the Marijuana Policy Project and several individual petition circulators and registered Nevada voters.
Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said his organization has been involved in litigation and public advocacy on ballot initiative questions.
"Our prior involvement has included the support of people whose petitions we both agree and disagree with," Peck said. "What is paramount for us is the integrity of the process. We want to make sure that the rights of the voting public are properly respected and no one is unlawfully disenfranchised. In this case, we actually support the legalization of small amounts of marijuana."
The lawsuit focuses on three issues:
•The "13 counties rule," which requires an initiative to have signatures from at least 10 percent of the number of voters who voted in the most recent general election in at least 13 of the state's 17 counties.
•The rule requiring a registered voter to sign the petition and sign an affidavit verifying that others who signed the petition are registered voters.
•The state's refusal to count the petition signatures of those who simultaneously signed voter registration applications.
According to the emergency motion filed Tuesday, Clark and Washoe counties have 87 percent of the state's total population. In the 2002 general election, according to the document, 82 percent of the state's voters came from the two counties.
"Given this remarkable disparity in voter turnout among counties, the effect of the '13 counties rule' is to dramatically increase the relative weight of the signatures of voters in rural counties and diminish the relative weight of the signatures of urban voters," the motion alleges.
According to the document, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently struck down an Idaho restriction that mirrors Nevada's "13 counties rule." Nevada is part of the 9th Circuit.
"As a result of the '13 counties rule,' even though more people voted to put the initiative on the 2004 ballot in Clark County than in any other county in Nevada, Clark County's 'vote' did not count," the motion alleges. "This is unfair, unequal and unconstitutional."
According to the motion, Heller requires petition circulators, who need not be registered voters, to sign an affidavit indicating they believe all signatures are valid.
If the circulator is a registered voter, that person also must sign what is referred to as an "affidavit of document signer." If the circulator is not a registered voter, then someone who signed the document must sign the affidavit.
The motion alleges the document signer rule serves no valid purpose and poses an unconstitutional burden on the First Amendment rights of circulators and citizens.
According to the motion, petition circulators gathered 35,409 signatures in Clark County, 4,049 more than required under the '13 counties rule."
But Heller concluded that nearly 18,000 of those signatures were invalid, according to the motion, because they were contained in documents in which a circulator signed both the affidavit of circulator and affidavit of document signer but did not sign the document as a supporter.
"The initiative is not the only initiative petition to suffer from the secretary of state's strained view of what the law requires for qualifying initiatives," according to the emergency motion.
Heller also disqualified thousands of signatures gathered in support of petitions to raise the minimum wage and stop frivolous lawsuits.
A state court judge later declared the requirement for an affidavit of document signer unconstitutional under the First Amendment and ordered Heller to count those signatures as valid.
According to the lawsuit in the marijuana case, the Clark County Election Department disqualified signatures in a random sample because it said the signatures were placed on the petition before the signers had registered to vote.
In those cases, the lawsuit alleges, the petitions and voter registration forms were signed at the same time. The state's refusal to count the signatures violates due process, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Clark County officials had given assurances that such signatures were valid.
New York attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, was in Las Vegas on Tuesday.
"This is a case that all the citizens of the state of Nevada should care about, because ultimately it's their right to choose to make new law, and that right has been stripped from them without any rational justification," the attorney said.
Transcript- Obama: Time to reclaim America's promise
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Barack Obama, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, gave the keynote speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention. This is a transcript of his remarks.
On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely.
My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.
While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas.
Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty, joined Patton's army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west, all the way to Hawaii, in search of opportunity.
And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents.
My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.
They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential.
They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.
And I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters.
I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on Earth, is my story even possible.
Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- or at least, most of the time.
This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.
And fellow Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.
Now don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to.
Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.
Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach our kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.
People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.
John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home.
John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.
John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.
John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.
And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.
You know, a while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6-2 or 6-3, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.
And as I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us?
I thought of the 900 men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists.
When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.
John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are all connected as one people.
If there's a child on the South Side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.
If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.
If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work.
It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.
Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America -- there is the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.
We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states.
There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here-the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it.
That's not what I'm talking [about]. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.
Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope.
In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead.
I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.
I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.
I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs, and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices and meet the challenges that face us.
America, tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do, if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president. And John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president. And this country will reclaim its promise. And out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you.
Some non-believers hail Ron Reagan Jr.'s speech at the Democratic convention as a political milestone for secularists. By Gustav Niebuhr
From a strictly political standpoint, Democrats pulled off a public relations coup in persuading Ron Reagan, son of the late president, to speak at their national convention this week. But the younger Reagan, who promised to speak about his support for stem cell research Tuesday night, is more than the youngest child of the Republican Party' peerless icon. He is also, by his own description, an atheist. And that raises a tantalizing question: Does his prime-time appearance at a national political event represent a political breakthrough for non-believers?
"The polls continue to show that a lot of Americans are uncomfortable electing a non-believer," said Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization. "It's almost a de facto religious test," he added, a reference to the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids any religious requirement of candidates for federal office.
"It's one of the interesting facts of political life in that the religious right says they're discriminated against, but in fact the atheists are shunned," Conn said.
Whether one describes it as atheism, agnosticism or secular humanism, open declaration of non-belief in religious ideas is not popular in the United States. Polls show that close to 95 percent of Americans claim to believe in a deity, a proportion much higher than prevails in most European countries. And in a nation whose motto, "In God We Trust," decorates the currency and whose highest court recently let stand the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, a majority of Americans tell pollsters they think a person cannot be moral without religious faith. That assumption deeply rankles non-believers.
It should be no surprise then that politicians typically claim a religious identity, even if not all are as public about it as President George W. Bush, whose personal piety has formed the subject of newsmagazine cover stories and at least one book. In an interview a few years back, Conn's boss, the Rev. Barry Lynn, said that in nearly three decades in Washington, he could not recall ever hearing a politician admit to being an atheist or agnostic. Indeed, pundits and some politicians have been urging the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, to talk more about his own religious beliefs as a means of connecting with voters--and the extensive faith language of the Democratic convention suggests he' gotten the message.
Bucking the culture shortly after his father's funeral last month, Ron Reagan said in two high-profile interviews that he does not believe in God. "I'm an atheist," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live," in remarks broadcast June 23, according to a transcript from the program. He made the same statement to The New York Times magazine, which published it four days after King's show.
Paul Kurtz, chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism, a non-profit organization based in Amherst, N.Y., praised Reagan's willingness to discuss his non-belief as a "bright sign" for secularists irritated by what they see as a surfeit of piety in public life. "That was a breath of fresh air," added Kurtz, who also serves as editor of "Free Inquiry” magazine and publisher of Promotheus Books, which like the council promote scientific rationalism. Just to hear someone declare his non-belief, especially on a nationally-broadcast television program, is a real departure, he said. "That topic is almost verboten in the United States," Kurtz said. "That's almost unheard of on 'Larry King Live,' or anywhere else."
Even if such a public statement is rare, it might reflect another, subtle tendency in American life. A growing minority of people are becoming disconnected from any religious affiliation, according to researchers who conducted an extensive survey of Americans' religious attitudes. In 2001, the authors of the American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by City University of New York's Graduate Center, stated that 14 percent of Americans claimed no religious affiliation, up from about 8 percent who made that claim in a similar survey in 1990. On the other hand, the survey found that those who specifically identify themselves as atheists or agnostics still comprise a very small proportion of the population--about 1 percent.
Taken by themselves, they don't represent much of a political base. Asked by the Times magazine if he had any interest in public office, Ron Reagan pronounced himself "unelectable," because of his lack of religious belief. He made a similar statement to Mr. King, adding, according to the transcript, that Americans wouldn't elect an atheist.
For his part, Kurtz indicated he would keep Mr. Reagan's appearance at the Democratic convention strictly in proportion. Politically, he said, it represented a "very minor opening" for non-believers. But he said with a laugh that he thought that Mr. Reagan deserved some recognition for saying what he did. Maybe he should receive an award, Mr. Kurtz said, "a freedom of conscience award."
Gustav Niebuhr, former religion reporter for the New York Times, is associate professor of religion and media in the Department of Religion and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.
Should Badnarik Be Invited to Presidential Debates? Yes 68% No 20% Not Sure 12%
RasmussenReports.com
Monday July 26, 2004--Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American adults believe that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik should be invited to participate in the Presidential Debates this year. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 20% believe Badnarik should not be invited while 12% are not sure.
The Libertarian Party candidate has been on the ballot in all 50 states for each of the past three elections and Badnarik is expected to be on every state ballot this November.
When voters were asked to choose between President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, and Badnarik, 46% said they would vote for the Democrat, 43% for the Republican, and 3% for Badnarik.
However, 29% of voters said there are circumstances under which they would consider voting for Badnarik. That includes 25% of Bush voters and 30% of Kerry voters.
When voters are informed that Badnarik opposes both the War in Iraq and the Drug War, 34% say they would consider Badnarik. That figure includes just 11% of Bush voters and 50% of Kerry voters.
The survey also found that 10% of Americans identify their political ideology as libertarian rather than conservative or liberal. Sixty-two percent (62%) share the Libertarian view that tax dollars should not be spent to support the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.
The national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was commissioned by the Badnarik for President campaign and conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 21, 2004. Margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Methodology.
Most effective way to prevent terrorism is missing from 911 report
Most effective way to prevent terrorism is missing from 911 report Most effective way to prevent terrorism is missing from 911 report, Libertarians say
"The intelligence reform needed most right now is a more intelligent foreign policy," says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. "Pulling U.S. troops out of nations where they don't belong would make America much safer than appointing a thousand new intelligence czars."
WASHINGTON, DC -- The report by the September 11 commission is missing one obvious way the U.S. government could reduce the chance of another terrorist attack, Libertarians say: Quit meddling in foreign nations.
"The intelligence reform needed most right now is a more intelligent foreign policy," says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. "Pulling U.S. troops out of nations where they don't belong would make America much safer than appointing a thousand new intelligence czars."
The report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, released on Thursday in Washington, notes that the government missed up to 10 opportunities to unravel the September 11 plot because of bureaucratic bungling among 15 U.S. intelligence agencies. It recommends creating a new multi-agency center to fight terrorism; appointing a single director of national intelligence; and strengthening congressional oversight of intelligence agencies.
Unfortunately, the politicians who authored the 600-page report chose to overlook the simplest way to protect America, Badnarik says: Adopt a foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention.
"Most Americans would be shocked to learn that U.S. troops are deployed in more than 100 nations around the globe," he said. "Putting U.S. troops in volatile, anti-American regions such as the Middle East makes them tempting targets for terrorists."
In fact, terrorists attacked several U.S. targets -- such as the USS Cole and the World Trade Center -- before the catastrophic events of September 11, and each time made it clear that they were reacting to U.S. foreign policy in the region.
"You don't see terrorists targeting other prosperous, Western-style democracies such as Switzerland, Canada or Sweden," he said. "And one reason is that those governments don't meddle in other nation's affairs or embark on foolish nation-building missions."
For decades, he noted, the U.S. government has provided military and financial aid to both Israel and its Arab enemies, has sided both with Iran and Iraq in their bitter, 10-year war and has routinely supported and armed brutal dictatorships around the world -- so politicians shouldn't pretend that they're shocked when Americans become targets for terrorists.
That's why the biggest missed opportunity of all is the government's refusal to reform U.S. foreign policy, Libertarians say.
"Instead of making America safer, Republicans and Democrats have opted once again to make government bigger," he said. "When will they learn that the best way to protect Americans at home is to quit making enemies abroad?"
========================= ========== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org ========================= ========== For release: July 22, 2004 ========================= ========== For additional information: George Getz, Communications Director Phone: (202) 333-0008 ext. 222 E-mail:GeorgeGetz@HQ.LP.ORG ========================= ==========
O'Reilly chickens out of his Patriot Act challenge
O'Reilly chickens out of his Patriot Act challenge The "No Spin Zone" now spinning out of control
(-PRWEB-) July 24, 2004 -- On July 13, Bill O'Reilly offered a challenge to debate anyone on the Patriot Act. His website has a transcript of this challenge.
Hollywood producer Aaron Russo (Trading Places, The Rose) accepted the O'Reilly challenge on behalf of his friend, Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. At this point, O'Reilly flipped 180 degrees and declined to debate Badnarik.
Below is a copy of correspondence between Russo and the O'Reilly people:
[e-mail from Russo]
any word from o'reilly regarding the acceptance of his challenge by michael badnarik, a presidential candidate on the ballot in 50 states... aaron russo
[response]
I checked again with Bill's office, having forwarded your email last week. According to producers, the "challenge" has apparently been misunderstood in terms of what Bill actually said on the air. There is no interest in having Mr. Badnarik on the show at this time. Thank you!!
[response from Russo]
I am very sorry to hear this news.
It is unfortunate that O'Reilly would issue a challenge about debating the worthiness of the "Patriot Act" and then for obvious reasons back out... I saw the show, and cannot perceive what the producers claim was "misunderstood"...
If he wishes to change his position on endorsing the Patriot Act, that would be acceptable and in the best interests of the American people.... Anything short of that or debating Mr. Badnarik live on air w/o any editing will seriously challenge O'Reilly's credibility (Mr. O'Reilly is rumored to have edited shows in the past, to appear as if he won the debate)...
We do have a large presence on the web and the Libertarian Party will get it's "troops" working to make certain the world knows of O'Reilly's censorship and prejudice... and deviousness.
We will no longer tolerate being treated as 2nd class citizens by the media... We will no longer tolerate being segregated against by the likes of O'Reilly who screams "fair and balanced" and "no spin zone" but in actuality is a segregationist who wants to keep the Libertarian Presidential candidate at the back of the political bus to protect Mr. Bush.
The days of the Libertarian Party being meek are over, we are moving to the front of the bus and demanding our right (as the largest 3rd party in America) to be heard.
Only in this way will the American people have an opportunity to vote for a man and a political party who truly believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.... Mr. Badnarik does not pretend to believe in our Constitution for cosmetic reasons like O'Reilly, George Bush and John Kerry. ...
GIVE THE PEOPLE A CHOICE IN THIS ELECTION.
"ALL OUR FREEDOMS ALL THE TIME" AARON RUSSO
Badnarik Communications Director Stephen Gordon has verified that Michael Badnarik is not "too frightened" and is still prepared to accept O'Reilly's challenge.
Badnarik pulls Independents' support from Bush THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds[login required] By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
Excerpt:
The survey suggested that the Libertarian had potential to steal support from Bush where it could hurt most: among much-coveted independents.
In Wisconsin, the survey showed that 8% of independents would back Badnarik. That cut Bush's performance among independent voters in the state from about 50% to 43%.
"Those voters, without even knowing the candidate, are so upset with Bush they are willing to say, 'I'm going to vote for a Libertarian,' " Jacobs said.
Preliminary polling data indicates Badnarik has the support to remove Bush from office
With the first round of major polling completed since Michael Badnarik won the Libertarian nomination to run for President, multiple results show him in a better starting position than previous Libertarian presidential campaigns (1).
Recent Zogby (2), Mason-Dixon (3) and Humphrey Institute (4) data indicate that Badnarik is consistently polling around one percent, as compared with Bush, Kerry, and Nader.
According to John Zogby, one percent may not sound like a lot, but with 16 to 20 states considered "battlegrounds" that are too close too call, this slim margin could determine the outcome of the contest.
A statement released by Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Institute indicates, "Although Nader enjoys far more press coverage, the Libertarian is still draining Republican votes from the President - a potentially dangerous pattern if it were to continue or expand."
Jacobs, who will be hosting a panel discussion (5) analyzing the third-party threat at the National Press Club on Wednesday, July 21, was recently quoted by CBS News (6) as saying, "The Libertarians will impact Republicans more than Nader will impact Democrats."
"As Jacobs suggested, publicity should have a profound effect in the polls this year. We have a strong start in this process, such as consistently beating Nader with respect to internet traffic (7) for the last two months," responded Badnarik spokesperson Stephen Gordon.
In a recent WorldNetDaily interview (8), Badnarik explained his three-part plan for getting this message out: "Television, television and television."
Former political opponent and Hollywood icon Aaron Russo (producer of "Trading Places" and "The Rose") is producing his commercials. They will be running on prime time, and "not at 2 a.m. on the Home Shopping Network," Badnarik said, highlighting a key difference in strategy from previous Libertarian campaigns.
Expanding Badnarik's comment, Gordon added, "Also, this election cycle is somewhat unique with respect to Libertarian presidential politics. Having the only candidate calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq - without replacing American troops for American troops wearing a UN patch - places us at a considerable advantage. Our first television commercial, which has just completed production, strongly addresses this issue."
Representatives from the Libertarian Party and Gordon intend to be present at the panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday.
Chronicle of a Nomination Foretold The Green Deceivers
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
So now that the American people are finally turning against the occupation of Iraq in huge numbers across both poles of the political landscape, the Green Party, the supposed banner of peace, justice and environmentalism, has settled on a plan of inaction that supports the perpetuation of the war and the corporate contamination of the American political system. That's the real import of the party's decision to support David Cobb, the stealth candidate, and his safe state's presidential strategy.
This leaves the Libertarians (a laudable conclave, despite their unyielding fixation with the tax code) as the only genuine anti-war political party in the general election-unless that master GOP fixer James Baker rushes to a distress beacon from the Oval Office and orchestrates an October deus ex machina, not by whacking Iran or Syria, but by cleaning the neo-cons out of the White House, in which case Bush, itching to exit Iraq, may yet emerge as a born-again pacifist rival to Michael Badnarik and the Libs. In any event, the mantle of peacemaker won't be shouldered by the patrician warrior John Kerry or his stiff proxy David Cobb.
The Greens have rendered themselves irrelevant as anything more than a feel-good subaltern to the Democratic Party, a kind of decompression tank for thumb-sucking progressive malcontents. Cobb and his gang say that the safe state's approach permits them to engage in party-building from the ground up by recruiting fidgety progressive Democrats without scaring them off with the prospect that the party might actually do some damage in the fall elections. Even taken at face value, it's a silly plan. Why waste time trying to lure Democrats, who long for a return a mystical era (usually represented by FDR or, even more preposterously, JFK) that never really existed? They'll only flee back to the Democrats with the slightest flurry of rhetorical coaxing. Why not concentrate on the 50 percent of the electorate that has rightly abandoned electoral politics out of boredom, frustration or anger at having no one worth voting for?
An argument can be made that the Greens will be better off as a party under Kerry. It goes like this: Kerry deepens the US role in Iraq; he escalates the war on Colombia and acts belligerent toward Venezuela and Cuba; he okays the construction of a natural gas pipeline across the Arctic tundra; he appoints an anti-abortion justice to the Supreme Courtl he imposes the austere economic regime scripted by Robert Rubin; he enacts new trade deals with China and Latin America; the jobless rate soars; social programs are sashed and privatized; social security is handed over to mutual fund managers. Under this plausible scenario, the most likely place progressives could turn for political relief is the Green Party.
Naturally, this is not Cobb's plan.
The Cobb scheme must be viewed more cynically-not as a way to grow the party, but slowly smother it from within. The safe state strategy is a recipe for political blowback. The Democrats have taken over the Green Party, just as they did the Labor Party, neutered its agenda and extinguished its only real power-the power to deny Kerry the presidency. To reconfigure Hamlet, this is how to support a war while seeming not to. It's simply a Green deceit. And the fact is that even in the so-called safe states Cobb is unlikely to get more than a single percent of the vote. No one knows who he is and he's working hard to keep it that way.
The Green convention that anointed Cobb was rigged--in multiple ways to ensure one result. There's little doubt of that now. The Cobb backers employed smear tactics against Nader and Camejo that were as vile as those lobbed by Democrats. Nader was denounced as an autocrat, an egomaniac, a racist, a sexist and, get this, a "millionaire."
Green celebs, such as Medea Benjamin, the boho diva of Global Exchange, were recruited to inveigh against Nader and Camejo. Who knows if Medea swayed any votes. Her home state of California didn't seem to pay much attention to her shrill alarums, because Peter Camejo won about 75 percent of the vote. Remember, this was Medea's second swipe at Camejo. Last fall, she also infamously weighed in against the recall of the insufferable Gray Davis, perhaps the worst governor in the history of California, including Reagan and George Deukmejiean.
In many state conventions and in the run up to Milwaukee, Cobb's mercenaries tried to suppress the vote. In several cases, they allowed frothing Democrats to intimidate voters as they tried to enter the convention buildings, while Cobbites continued the harangue on the floor itself. How do you build a grassroots movement, when you spend most of your time driving people away from your party? Ridiculous.
Even with all this slimy electioneering, Nader and Camejo still had more than enough actual votes to trounce Cobb and his know-nothing running mate, Pat LaMarche. But this Green junta doesn't count actual votes. It's electoral process seems to have been devised by Baby Doc Duvalier, where only the votes that have been pre-determined to count actually count.
Knowing that the Green electoral process was irredeemably flawed, Nader was right to reject the Greens early this year when he announced his candidacy. But he was foolish to court their support this summer. The problem for Nader was that the Democrats launched a pre-emptive attack on his campaign, fighting to keep him off the ballot in state after state. The Arizona situation may be the most hypocritical of all. There the Democratic Party hired people to scrutinize every signature seeking to invalidate them on grounds that some had criminal records or had not updated their addresses. Sound familiar? It's a replay of the Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris plan for Florida. Similar voter suppression campaigns were deployed in other states, including Oregon, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The famous battleground contests.
Nader wrongly assumed that the Greens, when faced with the pro-war, pro-corporate campaign of John Kerry, would throw their support behind his anti-war crusade. What Nader didn't realize-though he should have-was that the leadership of the Green Party had been hi-jacked by Democratic loyalists, many of them allied with non-profit groups getting money from foundations, like that of the Bush-hating billionaire George Soros, with a huge stake in a Kerry victory.
Starting in 2001, Cobb's sole purpose was to stop Nader, or any other potential Green candidate, such as Camejo or Cynthia McKinney, who may have wanted to run a serious national campaign that might threaten the Democrats' chances of retaking the White House. So far, the plan has worked. Although Kerry still seems more than capable of squandering the election on his own-that is, if they actually hold an election. Of course, Kerry, perhaps sensing the futility of his own campaign, didn't seem too ruffled about the prospect of Bush canceling the election, telling the Washington Post only that "it was too soon to comment." (But hold on! Here's an emergency email bulletin from Green veep candidate Pat LaMarche objecting to any talk about postponing the November elections. Apparently, the punch-drunk LaMarche doesn't want anything to interfere with her plan to vote against her own candidacy.)
So who is this new champion of the Greens, David Cobb? In the 1990s, Cobb, who markets himself as a working class hero, lived in Houston, where he worked as a lawyer for an insurance company, the bane of Nader and most poor people. There, according to a former colleague, Cobb's duties included finding ways to deny claims to injured parties and sick people.
Cobb ran the local Green Party as a tiny autocracy, unilaterally deciding which issues to take a stand on. According to several Houston Greens, Cobb proved to be both politically timid, extremely calculating and heavy-handed. In 1996, Cobb refused to oppose a local referendum on a taxpayer-financed stadium, which ended up only being opposed by libertarians. Cobb told a local Green organizer: "That vote was doomed to lose so we didn't waste our time on it." Grassroots organizing? Hardly. This is top-down organizing at its most petty and self-destructive.
Another example from Texas. In 2000 during the peak of Bush's killing spree, a group of anti-death penalty activists got arrested during a protest outside the killing chamber in Huntsville before the execution of Gary Graham. They soon circulated a letter of support through the progressive community. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn signed on, as did many local groups and churches. But not the Houston Greens. Not at first, anyway. Cobb objected. According to an anti-death penalty activist, Cobb said he didn't want the Greens associated with the campaign to save Graham from the lethal needle because "he might be guilty." What does guilt have to do with moral opposition to the death penalty? What kind of courage does it take to oppose the execution of the innocent?
Eventually, more humane hearts in the local Green community over-ruled Cobb and the party finally signed on. But too late to do Gary Graham any good.
Bob Buzzanco, a history professor and radical activist at the University of Houston, has watched Cobb's political peregrinations for many years. "When the war broke out, in 2003, a group of Students at the University of Houston, where I'm a professor, began to organized a peace group, and I was an advisor to them," recalls Bob Buzzanco. "Cobb and the Greens came to one of their meetings and acted in a most aggressive way and I had to publicly tell them that it was inappropriate to try to hijack a student peace group for the Greens."
What about Palestine? Nader recently denounced both Kerry and Bush as being owned by the Israeli lobby in DC. But don't expect David Cobb to stand up against the rampages of the Sharon government. Buzzanco had a radio show on the local Pacifica station in Houston, KPFT. In 2002, he came under attack from local liberals for his commentaries on the rampages of the Sharon regime, a campaign that finally resulted in Buzzanco being placed under an internal investigation by Pacifica's thought police.
"The local Greens were a major player in the Zionist slander campaign here," Buzzanco told me. "Two of Cobb's friends, George Reiter and Deb Shafto, were using KPFT as a campaign vehicle, to the detriment of other Left parties. They were front and center in the campaign calling me and others anti-semitic. When I talked to Cobb about it, he did nothing, far more concerned about getting that 0.001 percent of the vote than in being accountable for their candidates. The Houston Greens were a mess and Cobb was, in my estimation, an ego-driven charlatan."
But take comfort. At least he's not a millionaire ... not yet anyway.
Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and, with Alexander Cockburn, Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
For change in foreign policy, economy, choose Badnarik for president
For change in foreign policy, economy, choose Badnarik for president
With the presidential race in full swing, most everyone agrees the November election will be a referendum on the two main issues of foreign policy and the economy, particularly here in Ohio. Despite the constant stream of letters to the editor and online comments advocating either George Bush or John Kerry, I really see no difference between these two choices.
We remember how President Bush and Vice President Cheney advocated invading Iraq, according to some reports from day one of the administration. Kerry and his running mate, Sen. Edwards, both voted to give up their congressional authority to declare war, allowing the president to proceed with the invasion. Both Bush and Kerry are committed to keeping American troops in Iraq indefinitely, and both also think they can somehow get NATO or United Nations military support to help with security for the newly “sovereign” nation. And perhaps most significantly, both pledge to continue unwavering support of Israel, sending billions of dollars annually in money and weapons and turning a blind eye while Israel maintains a clandestine nuclear weapons program, demolishes entire neighborhoods and concentrates Palestinians in ghettos through constructing its apartheid wall, and carries out extrajudicial assassinations.
Regarding the economy, I think Ohio’s James A. Garfield, 20th president of the United States and a strong advocate of the gold standard, summed it up when he said, “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” Today that would be the Federal Reserve, giving Alan Greenspan far more power over our economy than the president.
For any voter who wants to end America’s foreign policy of global military intimidation and occupation, and wants a prosperous economy not controlled by the Federal Reserve’s printing presses, there is only one choice this November: Libertarian Michael Badnarik.
...Instead, millions of peace-loving Americans will either stay at home, or vote for a third party contender who does oppose the war. Almost all the third parties have better ideas about US foreign policy than the Democrats and Republicans. Most radical is Libertarian Michael Badnarik, who wants to see the entire US empire dismantled.
But many voters – and nonvoters – would enthusiastically put all their differences with Kerry aside and pull the Democratic lever in November, if he represented a real alternative to Bush’s warmongering.
Why doesn’t Kerry change his position, even if it would likely win him the White House?
My guess is that Kerry has no interest in winning on a pro-peace platform, simply because it would diminish his mandate to make war once elected. He approves of Bush’s imperial presidency, voted for Bush’s imperial actions, and now wants the job of Emperor himself. He admires and seeks the power to drop bombs and deploy armies all over the globe, and he would rather risk losing the election than win a landslide victory, if winning meant he’d have a hard time rallying the nation behind his own ambitions to rule the world.
Even when the majority wants peace, the two major parties pursue war. So we see yet another failure of democracy to maintain a peaceful America.
