Random Notes

Healing or Hiding? The Real Legacy of Gerald Ford

2007-01-01T18:30:00.000-08:00

By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor, Random Lengths News

As the nation remembers President Gerald Ford, the media is telling them what to remember: “Principle, not politics” says a typical headline in the St Petersburg Times. The Chicago Tribune called his pardoning of Nixon, “a transcendent act of forgiveness.” He helped us move on, and heal. It wasn’t popular—the American people (Tut! Tut!) wanted vengeance, but he did the wise and noble thing.

At the time, however, the media was a bit more sober-minded and egalitarian. The Los Angeles Times wrote that "the pardon was a mistake, inconsistent with the fundamental principle that everyone, including the president, is equal before the law."

Indeed, rather than helping us move on, the pardoning of Nixon set the stage for increased lawlessness by subsequent Republican Administrations—and increased quiescence by Democrats. Under Reagan/Bush, there was the Iran-Contra affair, selling arms to Iran—considered a hostile nation—to illegally finance a terrorist army in Nicaragua. When it came to light, congressional Democrats declared impeachment “off the table” even before their investigation began—just as they have now done with Bush’s lying the nation into war with Iraq.

The Times was right—we have paid a terrible price by placing our presidents above the law. And Gerald Ford is man who did it. Single-handedly.

There was also the question of whether Ford’s pardon was part of a deal to become President. In his memoir, Ford himself admitted the deal was offered, and he talked it over with several aides, before writing a statement saying that he hadn’t promised anything. The Nation magazine scooped this story before Ford’s memoir appeared. On Wednesday, December 27, then-publisher Victor Navasky said, “The way I read it was it was a an attempt to put a gloss of innocence on a deal they had made. And this is a possible obstruction of justice, and that it’s something that he shouldn’t have done and against the law, and possibly, after he got nominated and confirmed, an impeachable offense, even.”

Two days later, legendary Watergrate reporter Bob Woodward revealed another explanation: the two men shared “an intensely personal friendship dating to the late 1940s but so hidden that few others were even aware of it”—that’s right a hidden relationship that “seriously influenced Ford's eventual decision to pardon Nixon.”

Before he died, Ford told Woodward, "I looked upon him [Nixon] as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma."

Was “protecting his friend” obstructing justice? Nixon already answered that one: “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” That’s precisely the rationale that had Nixon headed for impeachment.

Betraying the country and the rule of law. What else are friends for?

By suppressing a full airing of Nixon’s Watergate crimes, the nation failed to fully learn the scope of criminal activity involved, making it easier for conservatives like New York Times columnist William Safire to trivialize what Nixon had done, applying the suffix “-gate” to a whole string of minor offenses. This, in turn, emboldened Republicans to impeach Clinton for whatever they could come up with. Ford planted the seeds for this, as well. In 1970, he lead an effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William Douglas. In a famous floor speech, Ford said, “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” When pressed, the same words were used to justify impeaching Clinton.

Brute force on the one hand, “principle” and “forgiveness” on the other. Ford was a master of the double standard.

But there was a principle he believed in—and that was covering things up. Within months of taking office, he vetoed a set of amendments substantially strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). First passed in 1966, FOIA had proven too weak to force release of important government documents—particularly in light of Watergate stonewalling. Although Ford promised the American people an open government upon taking office on August 9, he vetoed the FOIA amendments on October 17. Congress over-rode his veto the next month—371-31 in the House, and 65-27 in the Senate.

Among his advisors urging this course were Antonin Scalia, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, along with Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Cheney. Yes, that’s right. Ford also helped launch Rumsfeld and Cheney into the upper levels of GOP power . Cheney replaced Rumsfeld as Chief of Staff when Ford appointed Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense.

Ford also appointed George H.W. Bush as head of the CIA. In turn, Bush approved an orchestrated politicization of intelligence on the Soviet Union, known as “Team B,” a group of outside analysts that attacked the CIA’s internal analysis, claiming the Soviets would soon be militarily dominant over us.

Like the previous “bomber gap” and “missile gap” analyses—also produced in special circumstances, showing the US far behind the Soviets—Team B’s analysis was wildly off the mark. However, unlike them, it became the basis for policy—Reagan’s defense build-up, which may actually have prolonged the Cold War by delaying Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascent to power in the Soviet Union, and strengthening the hand of hardliners opposing him.

Ford also permitted Indonesia’s genocidal invasion and annexation of East Timor in 1975. Along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, he met with Indonesian dictator Suharto, in December of 1975, on the eve of the invasion. Plans had been in the works for over a year, and were known in advance to American intelligence agencies. Indonesia was totally dependent on American military supplies, and held off its plans until it was sure they would not be cut off in case of invasion.

A memo of the meeting was not declassified until 2002. In it, Suharto disavows any territorial interests and couches the invasion in terms of "establish[ing] peace and order... in the interest of the security of the area and Indonesia."

Ford responded, "We will understand and will not press you on the issue."

Ford and Kissinger went on to discuss managing public opinion in response to the invasion. "It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly," Kissinger said.

On his return to Washington, just a few days after the invasion, Ford sent Suharto a set of golf balls by diplomatic pouch.

A UN report issued one year ago found that the Indonesian military used starvation as a weapon of extermination, killing as many as 180,000 civilians.

Gerald Ford. He really knew how to heal.

Ford was known to joke he was “a Ford, not a Lincoln.” But it was no joking matter. Lincoln steered us through the bloodiest strife our nation has endured. Ford thought a court case was more than we could bear. Or so he said.

If Lincoln could not heal the wounds of the Civil War, it was first and foremost because he did not live to have the chance. Ford turned the wounds of Watergate into a forest of festering sores in which we still wander, lost, to this day. He, at least, is free of what he has sown. We should not mourn for him, but for ourselves.

Clinton/Fox News Sunday Transcript

2006-09-26T16:46:00.000-07:00

Chris Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole

President William Jefferson Clinton: Okay…

CW: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…

WJC: No, let’s talk about…

CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?

WJC: Okay, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right-wing conservative on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 911 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough claimed (then) that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said (then) that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it and stayed
six months and had an orderly transfer to the UN. Okay, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

CW: I understand…

WJC: No wait…no wait…don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer.

CW: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

WJC: And secondly…

CW: Bin Laden says…

WJC: Bin Laden may have said that…

CW: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. …

WJC: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering…thousand Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission - none - to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

CW: But Mr. President…

WJC: There was no al Qaeda…

CW: …with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93…

WJC: You asked, you. It (was) you (who) brought it up.

CW: May I ask a general question that you can answer? The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about–and this is what they did say–not what ABC pretended they said…

WJC: Wait, wait…

CW: …They said about you and 43 and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank"…

WJC: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…

CW: …the 9/11 Commission says…

WJC: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?

CW: Yes, I do.

WJC: You do?

CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions - not opinions–assertions. He said we took "vigorous action" after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.

CW: [..]

WJC: Now, wait a minute…

CW: …cruise missiles…

WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?

WJC: No, because I didn’t get him.

CW: Right…

WJC: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including
all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for
trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried
and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and
the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke.

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

CW: Now wait a minute, sir…

WJC: [..]

CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many
people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’ I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know…

CW: We asked…

WJC: [..]

CW: Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?

WJC: I don’t believe you ask them that.

CW: We ask plenty of questions of…

WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.

CW: About the USS Cole?

WJC: Tell the truth…

CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

WJC: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

CW: [laughs]

WJC: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

CW: But, President Clinton…

WJC: [..]

CW: We were going to ask half the [interview time] about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

WJC: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

CW: Sir, that is not true…

WJC: …and Richard Clarke…

CW: That is not true…

WJC: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

CW: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: No, I want to finish this.

CW: All right…

WJC: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

CW: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did no one know in 1998…

WJC: Absolutely, they did.

CW: …when they bombed the two embassies?

WJC: [..]

CW: Or in 2000, when they hit the Cole?

WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

CW: [Laughs]

WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. [Not] until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

CW: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: You can.

CW: I always intended to, sir.

WJC: No, you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one-sided question. It always comes from one source. And so…

CW: [..]

WJC: And so…

CW: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s
the source? You seem upset…

WJC: I am upset because…

CW: …and all I can say is, I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…

WJC: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked against terror…[since] under Reagan. Only one: Richard Clarke. And all I’d say [to] anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right; anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying ‘Why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden?’ And that was ‘Wag the Dog’ when he tried to kill him. My Republican Secretary of Defense, - and I think I’m the only person since WWII to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposition party - Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

CW: All right…

WJC: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia – the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd.

CW: One of the…

WJC: So if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody.

CW: I think we do, sir.

WJC: Be fair.

CW: I think we do. One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

WJC: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is: What’s the best way to do it? I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy? Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy. But do I think on balance, that in the end, after several bouts of instability, do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure, I do. …[Do I think] the president has a right to do it? Sure, I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

CW: Last year at this conference you got $2.5 billion in commitments, pledges. How did you do this year?

WJC: Well, this year we had $7.3 billion, as of this morning.

CW: 7…Excuse me…

WJC: $7.3 billion, as of this morning. $3 billion of that is…that’s over a multi-year [commitment]. These are at most 10-year commitments. That came from Richard Branson’s commitment to give all his transportation profits to clean energy investments. But still that’s over $4 billion [raised excluding Branson’s donation]. And we will have another 100 commitments and probably raise another billion dollars. We have a lot of commitments still in process.

CW: When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus billions that Gates is giving and Warren Buffet, what do you make of this age of philanthropy?

WJC: I think that for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. They’ve endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who are interested in issues around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities - the income inequalities, the education inequalities, the health care inequalities. You get a guy like Gates who built Microsoft and he actually believes that he can help overcome all of the health disparities in the world. That’s the first thing. Second thing, there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining me because of the Internet. Take the tsunami, for example. We had $1.3 billion given….by [average income] households. The third things you have all these NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that you can partner with along with the government. So all these things together mean that people with real money [can contribute] in ways that help people that before would have been only the object of government grants and loans.

CW: I know we’re over, but can I ask you two political questions? Let’s talk
some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say you’re tired of Karl
Rove’s BS. I’m cleaning up what you said.

WJC: I also say I’m not tired of Karl Rove. I don’t blame Karl Rove. If you’ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.

CW: So what is the BS?

WJC: Well, every even number year–right before an election–they come up with some security issue. In 2000, right before the election. In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapon inspections in Iraq and were 100% behind them in Afghanistan and they didn’t have any way to make us look like we didn’t care about terror. And so they decided they would [push] the Homeland Security bill that they opposed and they put some pill in it that we wouldn’t pass–like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people–and then [they could] say that we were weak on terror if we weren’t for it. This year I think they wanted to make the question of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issue until John Warner came and Lindsey Graham got in there and it turns out there were some Republicans who believe in the Constitution and their convictions…some ideas about how best to fight terror.

As long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we may have our differences over Iraq, but I think we’ll do fine this election.

Even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove’s new foray if we don’t make it clear that we care about the security of this country. We want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven’t [done] in four years. We want to [..] Afghanistan against Bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent. If they want to talk about Iraq, say what they really want about Iraq.

But Rove is good and [that is] why I honor him. I’ve always been amused by how good he is. But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable. We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid. If they’re afraid and we get divided again, then we’ll only win a few seats.

CW: Do you think the White House and the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?

WJC: Of course they do. They want another Homeland Security bill and they want to make it not about Iraq but some other security issue, where if we disagree with them, we are by definition endangering the security of the country. And it’s a big load of hooey. We’ve got nine Iraq war veterans running for House seats. President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral who was on my NSC staff - who also fought terror, by the way - is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania. We’ve got a huge military presence in this campaign and you can’t let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box that we don’t belong in.

That’s their job. Their job is to beat us. But our job is to not let them get away with it and if we don’t, we’ll be fine.

CW: Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.

WJC: I promise you, I was not trying to [..].

Marcy Winograd Blocks Democratic Party Endorsement of Incumbent Jane Harman

2006-04-04T19:17:00.000-07:00

Progressive Democrat Marcy Winograd won 35% of the 104-delegate vote at last weekend's Democratic Party delegate caucus in Harbor City, thus blocking Congresswoman Jane Harman from receiving the party's endorsement ahead of the State Party Convention in Sacramento. Harman will have a better shot at the convention, where local grassroots representation will be diluted. Winograd's campaign reports about the event here.

Long Beach Student Walkouts Continue

2006-03-28T14:25:00.000-08:00

Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

On Monday, roughly 2,000 Long Beach students participated in day-long walkouts in protest of draconian immigration law changes being proposed in Congress. Students marched to three congregation centers: Houghton Park, Cesar Chavez Park and the Long Beach Civic Center Plaza. The march down Pacific Avenue to the Civic Center stretched at least six or seven blocks, with banners, flags and signs.

According to a jointly prepared police and school district press relesases, students came from seven Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) high schools: Millikan, Wilson, Jordan, Renaissance, Cabrillo, Poly and Lakewood. They were joined by students from Mayfair and Paramount high schools as well, as well as by a scattering of Long Beach middle school students.

Traffic was "significantly impacted" according to police, who deployed approximately 400 officers in response, activating the SWAT team, deploying detectives, and mobilizing over eighty off-duty officers. According to the LBPD/LAUSD:

In response to the protest activities, the City of Long Beach activated its Emergency Operations Center. Representatives from various city departments, the Long Beach Unified School District, and the California Highway Patrol worked under a unified command to coordinate citywide resources and ensure the safety of the students and the community.

Walkouts continued Tuesday, according to LBUSD spokesperson Chris Eftychiou. "Today we have had as many as 1000 total, including a handful of students from a few middle schools as well," he said. These included roughly several hundred combined from Wilson, Poly & Cabrillo, roughly 120 from Millikan, 50 from Lakewood and 150 from Jordan, according to a more detailed report from LBreport.com. Over 100 students reportedly left Hill Middle School, while most other Middle School walk-outs numbered between 20-30 or less.

On Tuesday, LBUSD drafted a letter to parents, stating:

When societal or political issues arise in our community, our state, or our nation, we encourage students to voice their concerns and participate in appropriate classroom discussion about these events. We discourage activities that jeopardize the safety of students or interrupt the educational process.

It is important to remember that there are consequences when a student leaves class or campus without permission. Consequences will be determined consistent with school practice based upon a student’s involvement and behavior.

I hope you will stress to your children the importance of remaining on campus and expressing their opinions in a safe and productive manner.

Yet, a substantial body of pedagogical theory stresses the importance of engaging students in the world around them. When students take the initiative to engage the world without teachers having to prod them, there could be smarter ways for schools to react, and further their education, than trying to quickly sedate them again.

Students Walk out, Protest in Solidarity

2006-03-28T13:55:00.000-08:00

By James preston Allen, Publisher

On Monday March 26 a reported 40,000 southern California highschool students took to the streets to protest the pending immigration legislation in Washington DC. Students from all over Los Angeles walked out of schools and demonstrated their solidarity with immigrant rights organizers who held a mammoth 500,000 person protest the previous Saturday at City Hall in LA. Locally students from Banning, Carson, and San Pedro high schools left classes and marched by the hundreds in an air of gleefull protest that snarled traffic on the 110 Harbor freeway and then wound its way back through San Pedro on South Pacific Avenue then back to the High School. Many LAUSD schools were on "lock down" and the automated phone messaging system for Dana Middle School, which adjoins the San Pedro high school notified parents that as of Tuesday this school as all LAUSD high schools and Middle schools would be on lock down.

School officials and Harbor Division police gathered at the area around the mouth of the Harbor Freeway to discourage further disruptions. LAPD Captain Gannon said, "If the kids get out our job is to help facilitate them, if they want to march. But we definitely don’t want to see anyone get hurt." Referring to the students that clogged the Harbor Freeway on Monday. "I hate to see one of these kids get hit," Gannon concluded.

Even Councilwoman Janice Hahn seemed supportive of the student’s right to demonstrate, "especially on Ceasar Chavez Day," she explained. Perhaps this will, "Get our young people out of their apathetic nature [and motivate] them to vote in the future," Hahn said.

Carson Rocked by Protests

2006-03-28T13:53:00.000-08:00

By Lyn Jensen, Carson Reporter

High-school students protesting proposed federal legislation staged large demonstrations in Carson on Monday and Tuesday. Students in many communities nationwide walked out of classes for several days over the past week to protest a bill passed by the House of Representatives last December that would make being in the US illegally a felony.

About two hundred, mostly Hispanic students gathered for about an hour in front of City Hall on Monday, waving Mexican flags and carrying misspelled and obscenity-laced signs criticizing the House Bill 447.

"We had a few people throw water bottles and there was some jaywalking," said Capt. Todd Rogers of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, but there were no arrests.

The next morning about 1,000 students from several area schools gathered in front of Carson High School. Police made three arrests, two for assault on a police officer and one for disorderly conduct.

A spokesperson for Carson High School said the school was in complete lockdown for the later part of Monday and all day Tuesday.

"We support the constitutional right to protest," said Rogers, "but they've got to do it safely."

Massive Immigration Law Protests Set Tone In LA

2006-03-28T13:29:00.000-08:00

The largest-ever demonstration in LA history on Saturday, March 25--estimated at anywhere from 500,000 to over 1,000,000 people--set a tone that drew students in a widespread walkout the day before, and even larger walkouts the following Monday. While LAUSD went on lockdown the next day, walkouts continued locally in Long Beach. The continued demonstrations raise the possibility of a fundamental shift in citizen attitudes, and willingness to take political action. It also appears to signal a significant set-back in the GOP's long-term strategy to try to woo Latino voters.

Photo: Matt Highland. Click to enlarge.

Meet Marcy Winograd--Progressive Dem Challenges Harman Over War

2006-03-28T09:29:00.000-08:00

By Chris Yang, Staff Reporter

It's not just that Jane Harman voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and in favor of the Patriot Act. She's also recently defended Bush's illegal wiretapping program, and helped prevent the House Intelligence Committee--where she is the ranking Democratic member--from even conducting an investigation. Given her continued support for Bush's war policies, its no surprise she faces some fierce opposition from her constituents particularly in Venice and San Pedro. But now she's facing a primary challenge as well, as local activist Marcy Winograd has stepped forward to challenge the much wealthier incumbent in the June 6 primary.

The activist and self-described progressive recently spoke with Random Lengths to discuss her campaign and the issues facing the district. Winograd hails most recently from Pacific Palisades, and only entered the race after efforts to recruit someone already living in the district failed, but her history with the community gives her a strong well of support with which she can draw from. Winograd was raised in West Los Angeles and attended UC Berkeley. She has worked previously as a news director for KPFK, and has held several positions within the Los Angeles schools. She is currently serving as the President of Los Angeles chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America and is a member of Palisadians for Peace. In addition to her work as an activist, she co-authored a book titled "Lights, Camera, Woof! Writing For Pet Entertainment Television, an Activity Workbook", which is described as a guide for young writers.

Winograd at Arlington West Memorial.

In addition to supporting the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, Winograd believes the United States should embrace a whole new foreign policy. "Security is about building trust," Winograd said. How did she feel about the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11? "I questioned whether this was the answer. How much did this really resolve things?" said Winograd. She called the current situation in Afghanistan a "morass." (Heroin now accounts for nearly 80% of the country's economy.)

On more local issues, Winograd has positioned herself as a strong advocate for the environment and an opponent of the powerful development interests that have beset Southern California. Winograd's strongest motivation for running against Representative Harman was the incumbent's consistent record of unwillingness to oppose the president's reckless agenda. She ticked off a list of items that the representative supported but which she opposed: the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, the introduction of new nuclear weapons (known as "bunker busters") into the U.S. arsenal, and the authorization to use force in Iraq.

As an activist, Winograd is no stranger to confrontation. Late last year she led a protest at the Los Angeles Times to oppose the firing of the liberal columnist Robert Scheer. She also participated in a protest of a Hillary Clinton fundraiser, stating "Hillary Clinton leads us to war. That's not the kind of leadership we need." In addition to opposing pro-war democrats, Winograd has also had run-ins with pro-war conservatives like David Horowitz, who described an encounter he had with the candidate in an article on his website (frontpagemag.com) titled "Indoctrination in High School".

Since she announced herself as a candidate, Winograd has managed to garner endorsements and interest from several well-known politically active citizens, including Vietnam veteran and anti-war activist Ron Kovic, actor-activist Ed Asner, and Pentagon Papers author Daniel Ellsberg.

During the primary season preceding the 2004 presidential campaign, Winograd voted for anti-war candidate Dennis Kucinich even though she "…knew he could not win." Does that mean she would be a carbon copy of the representative from Ohio? Only Winograd knows for sure. One thing about this election though is certain: whoever wins the primary is virtually guaranteed to win the general election in November. Given Congress's abdication of its duty in October of 2002 when it gave the power to wage war to one man, Winograd's entrance into the election will no doubt be welcomed by many in the community. The question that remains for residents now is: Can she do it?

GOP Defends Treason, Advocates Terror

2005-07-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

On Air America's Morning Sedition, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg accused Karl Rove of treason for his role in outing Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent. Plame was outed in retaliation for her husband, Joseph Wilson writing an Op-Ed in the New York Times, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", exposing the Niger-Iraq uranium connection as a fraud.

Mark Maron and Mark Riley were interviewing Lautenberg regarding his call for Karl Rove to lose his security clearance as a result of the Plame leak.

But Lautenberg is hardly alone. On April 26, 1999, former President George H.W. Bush spoke at the dedication ceremony for the CIA's George Bush Center for Intelligence. He said, in part:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view the most insidious, of traitors.

In the first few months after the leak of Plame's name, White House spokesman Scott McClellan in a September 29, 2003 press briefing:

He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

It is now clear that Rove "was involved in it," and... what do you know? The Bush lied again. He's not firing Rove. Instead, the entire GOP is responding with page 1 from Rove's playbook--attack the enemy's strength. The strength is that Joe Wilson was right. Outing his wife was the act of traitors, as Bush Sr. put it. And Bush Jr. is defending traitors.

The GOP has a set of talking points trying to turn the story into an attack on Wilson's credibility, and defending Rove's exposure of Wilson's wife. The first talking point is:

"Once Again, Democrats Are Engaging In Blatant Political Attacks...."by calling on Bush to keep his word. The next two talking points are:

But Wilson never made any such claim! In his Op-ed, Wilson wrote:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."Republicans are trying to frame this as a husband-wife vendetta. But Plame had no role in sending Wilson to Africa. All she did was tell her superiors of his knowledge and contacts there. The documents Cheney relied on were later turned over the the IAEA, which quicky found them to be inept forgeries.

All this is a desperate attempt to distract attention from Bush's broken promise to get rid of anyone involved in the leak--because without Rove, Bush would be lost.

Upping the ante even more, GOP Congressman Peter King (NY) said on MSNBC's Scarborough program "Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove."

For the record, to date no Democrat has called for Karl Rove to be shot. However, treason is a capital crime. Tim Russert's "reporting"--even at its worst--is not.

Downing Street Memos Leak Into US Press

2005-06-23T09:35:00.000-07:00

Eleven days after LA Times Editiorial and Opinion Page Editor Michael Kinsley pooh-poohed the Downing Street Memo ["The Left Gets A Memo"], the Times has continued to ignore the issues they raise in its news coverage, but now they have run a commentary by Michael Smith, the British reporter who broke the story for the London Sunday Times.

Smith reports on receiving two sets of memos. The first, which he received nine months ago when he worked for the London Daily Telegraph, and was still a staunch war supporter, "were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush." They dealt with the period before Bush and Blair held a summit in Crawford, Texas in early April, 2002.

The second batch came from a different source, when he was writing for a different paper, and related to Blair's war Cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002. He writes:

Smith goes on to describe how the increase in bombing Iraq was intended to provoke Iraq into a counter-attack that could then justify all-out war:

This point is vitally important, of course. It's another nail in the coffin for Bush.

Smith's analysis only scratches the surface, however, when it comes to the issue of the media. The official corporate media spin has been that the Downing Street Memo contains "nothing new." And in a sense they're right--more right than he is. Everything that's in them was obvious to any clear-headed observer--incuding the increase in bombing Iraq, and the purpose behind it.

A similarly transparently false strategy was used in funding the terrorist war on Nicaraugua in the early 1980s. It began with the rationale of interdicting arms flowing from Nicaragua to the rebels in El Salvador. But the two countries do not share a land border, and terrorists we funded were based in Honduras--which already had an army we provided aid to that could interdict any arms flow through its territory. The terrorists we funded did nothing to stop arms flow through Honduras. They used Honduras as a base for raids on civilian targets in Nicaragua--terrorizing the population in an attempt to undermine support for the government. After almost two years of charade, the rationale was simply dropped. It was no longer needed for propaganda purposes.

The situation was the similar with Iraq. The lies were right in front of us for all to see. But Bush, Blair and the same official corporate media were all busy telling us, "Who are you going to believe, us or your own lying eyes?"

On September 11, 2002, USA Today ran a story, "Iraq course set from tight White House circle", which stated as fact:

No less a figure than Condi Rice confirmed their story:

That story ran in one of America's few national newspapers, yet it was utterly ignored then, and remains utterly ignored today. This behavior pattern clearly shows the corporate media's complicity in taking us to war illegally. They knew we were being lied to, and they looked away at best, and repeated the lies as fact at worst. Is there any wonder why they are reluctant to investigate?

Now that the Times has printed Michael Smith's account as commentary, will they follow up with news coverage? Will they have their national reporters ask the Administration the tough questions that activists and Congressmembers have already put repeatedly without getting answers? And if the Administration refuses to answer, or responds with bald-faced lies, will they simply print that that is what the Administration has done? Or will they continue--actively or passively--to be part of the coverup?

Bush And Blair Lie About Downing Street Memo--Analysis

2005-06-09T08:39:00.000-07:00

At a joint press conference on June 7, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both blatantly lied in response to a question about the Downing Street Memo (DSM). Rather than respond to the substance of the memo itself, they repeated the very propaganda line which minutes reveal as a deliberate falsehood. Bush and Blair did not even try to discredit the minutes themselves, which is the only possible way to refute the underlying claim.

The question asked was, "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?"

Naturally, both men responded to the ineptly-stated question by denying everything. "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," said Blair.

But the memo itself—minutes of a meeting Blair held with his top advisors on July 23, 2002—said, "C [British intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington.... Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Blair made no attempt to explain why the meeting minutes directly contradict him.

"And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth," added Bush.

That somebody, Sir Richard Dearlove, is the head of MI6, the British equivalent of the CIA. Bush made no attempt to justify his accusation that Britain's chief of national intelligence is a liar.

Bush also said, "[W]e worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously." Not only is this statement contradicted by the Downing Street Memo, it also lies about Saddam's response: he allowed the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, essentially complying with Resolution 1441.

Bush And Blair Lie About Downing Street Memo--Text

2005-06-09T08:33:00.000-07:00

At a joint press conference on June 7, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both blatantly lied in response to a question about the Downing Street Memo. Here is the text of the question and response. Analysis to follow:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.

But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well.

And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Marines Kidnap Recruiting Target

2005-06-09T06:53:00.000-07:00

Marine recruiters escalated from harrassment to outright kidnapping in pursuit of Axel Cobb, a recent high graduate in Sedro-Woolley, Washington, a small town 65 miles north of Seattle, according to a published account by Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Susan Paynter.

It began with "a relentless barrage of calls" when he turned 17. His mother, Marcia, tried using call blocking. (Axel's father, a Marine Corps Vietnam Vet, died when he was 4.) "And that's when she learned her first hard lesson," Paynter wrote. "You can't block calls from the government, her server said." The harrassing phone calls continued for over a year. Then:

The next step of Axel's misadventure came when he heard about a cool "chin-ups" contest in Bellingham, where the prize was a free Xbox. The now 18-year-old Skagit Valley Community College student dragged his tail feathers home uncharacteristically late that night. And, in the morning, Marcia learned the Marines had hosted the event and "then had him out all night, drilling him to join."The next weekend, when his mother was out of town, Axel was hounded at home, then at work, where he was browbeaten into taking a ride. He had no idea he would not be going home that night. They drove him to Seattle, 65 miles away. He was allowed to sleep a few hours in a motel. Then:

She had tried to contact her son, but the Marines had confiscated his cell phone, "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."

The whole chilling story is told here.

If this is what the Marines will do to an 18-year old American kid they're trying to recruit, is it any wonder what they'll do to "the enemy"?

Somebody needs to tell them, "No means no."

And if the American people will not willingly fight a war, it obviously should not be fought. Let those who believe in it so ferverently go sign up themselves. And leave the Axel Cobbs of America alone.

Ted Kennedy Speaks Out On Downing Street Memo

2005-06-08T04:35:00.000-07:00

Raw Story reports that Senator Ted Kennedy issued a statement on the Downing Street Minutes on Tuesday, June 7. "Kennedy becomes the first senator to raise the issue in the Senate, after earlier reports that Massachusetts' junior senator, John Kerry, would speak about the minutes in Washington," Raw Story reported.

In his statement, Kennedy said:

At TomKennedy.com:

Full text
email form to ask your Senator to join Kennedy's call.

Columbia Journalism Review Stunned By Real News

2005-06-08T03:59:00.000-07:00

Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) "sat in shock and awe for the better part of an hour, as anchors Zain Verjee and Jim Clancy did nothing more than deliver the news like it's supposed to be done," as CNN began domestically broadcasting its news program "Your World Today" that airs regularly on CNN International.

"Stunned by 15 straight minutes of actual news, we heard an equally incredulous CJR colleague in the background quip, 'It's weird to be watching news.' And indeed it was."

Downing Street Memo Pressure Builds

2005-06-02T07:41:00.000-07:00

Kerry Speaks Out; Impeachment Inquiry Sought; Conyers Seeks Citizen Support

There have been 3 significant developments since RLN's story on the Downing Street Memo,
"Smoking Gun Memo Exposes Bush's Iraq War Lies" was written:

Congressmember John Conyers is seeking 100,000 citizen signaturres for a letter to Bush echoing the demands of the letter he sent with 89 other Congressmembers.
A campaign has been launched to urge Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. Constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, sent a memo to that effect to Congressmember John Conyers. The campaign is being speaheaded by a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, including Democrats.com, Global Exchange, Code Pink, Gold Star Families for Peace, Progressive Democrats of America, Veterans for Peace, Democracy Rising, Rainbow Push, Velvet Revolution, and Justice Through Music.

In the memo, Bonifaz wrote:
Senator John Kerry has become the first Senator to speak out about the Downing Street Memo. A story in the Standard-Times of Massachussettes reported:

Downing Street Memo--Text

2005-06-02T07:11:00.000-07:00

Originally published in London Sunday Times, the Downing Street Memo contains minutes of a meeting in which British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisors discuss as undisputed fact the Bush Administration determination to invade Iraq, and create whatever pretext is necessary to justify it. The memo was written by Mathheew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. The Bush Administration has now had one full month to dispute the authenticity of the memo and has not done so. In the memo, "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, Britain's CIA. Here is the complete text:

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

Uppie Award Address By Senator Barbara Boxer

2005-05-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

Eighty-three years ago Upton Sinclair was arrested right outside this beautiful theater. And his crime? Reading aloud from the Bill of Rights to a group of organizers who were fighting for our liberties. Tonight, we must do much more than just remember Liberty Hill... Let's face it. It is often hard and, yes, lonely to raise our voices on behalf of our most basic rights and liberties. Those gathered at Liberty Hill knew that. You certainly know that. And believe me, so do I. But it's never been more important. When legitimate questions about how we wage war and pursue peace are labeled as unpatriotic, we must make our voices heard. When America's workers are threatened, whether it's their wages or their benefits or their right to organize, or their social security, we must make our voices heard.

And yet, when the basic right of dissent is under attack, we must make our voices heard. The right wing in this country is plotting--plotting to change the rules of the Senate and outlaw filibusters of judicial nominations. The reason? They want it all. It's the arrogance of power. We've confirmed 208 of President Bush's nominations and only blocked ten. And those are the most extreme. I'm talking about judges who are completely out of the mainstream. Judges who could spend a lifetime on the bench undermining the protections that many of you have spent their lives defending. And yes, judges who should be forced to get sixty votes. This isn't about some arcane rule. It's about the role of the minority. The role of minority voices. It's about silencing voices with whom you don't agree.

We should never be afraid of debate and disagreement. They are the stuff of our democracy, the foundation of our country. And the promise of the First Amendment that Upton Sinclair read eighty-two years ago. And I'm quoting: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." More than 200 years later it is up to us, now to fulfill those promises.... If we lose our right to dissent, if we lose minority rights, if we lose America as we know it, then the world will lose a beacon of freedom that has been uplifting for so long.

Uppie Award Address By James Allen

2005-05-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

(Publisher of Random Lengths News)

Publishing a newspaper carries with it an awful lot of responsibility. It carries the response of truly taking words and ideas to a public that is hungry for that. And even though we're told daily that the public doesn't really want to hear the truth, and often we get punished for telling the truth, I know in my heart that the vast majority of the American people, a vast majority of San Pedro's citizens, actually have a deep hunger to hear the truth, and that's why this newspaper has survived.

You know, sometimes, we have copies of this original issue of the Liberty Hill story out on the desk in front there. I wasn't sure, at the time we published this, what kind of impact it would have and how it would be taken by the local constabulary, the conservative element of San Pedro. That here in San Pedro, this oh-so-liberal organization, the ACLU, was actually born out of some momentous fracas with the LAPD. And yet, this one issue Lauren Coodley, the author who was honored here tonight calls the most accurate account of the arrest of Upton Sinclair that was ever published in any newspaper. And you have to realize this was true only because all the newspapers at the time were all corporate-owned. There wasn't a Random Lengths in San Pedro at that time that would actually tell the truth about what was going on.

So, I'm honored to have been able to--sort of like an archaeologist--to dig up this history, this truth, this essential truth about our community that has inspired this event, that has inspired others to plant a monument down at Fifth and Harbor Boulevard. And I believe that this is going to inspire a lot more out of all of you and others who hear of this event. For it's become like Dan Pasley would like to see it. And like I think all of us would like to see it: like a day of national of free speech, a national day for Liberty Hill.

Suzanne and I have toiled long and hard at this "archaeological dig," a sort of digging up the truth and being able to print it. And it has not been always easy. And there have been some great struggles, both financial and physical, that go along with this. But it gives me no greater pleasure than to see a group of people like this tonight that come to honor these people for such a great enterprise as the First Amendment in a town such as San Pedro, on a day like Liberty Hill.

"Sweet Revenge"--Uppie Award Address By John Ross

2005-05-29T08:59:00.000-07:00

(FULL TEXT of remarks made May 15th upon receiving a 2005 Upton Sinclair Award from the south bay chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union--the date commemorates the arrest of Upton Sinclair on Liberty Hill in San Pedro, California as he read the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.)

For a muckraker, nothing works quite as well as his or her's own nose. If it smells bad, there is bound to be substantial malfeasance afoot. Upton Sinclair was a senior muckraker who made all us juniors look like we were sniffing sweet daisies. "The Jungle" stank about as bad any scandal could ever stink. And you know what? It's still stinking.

A couple of winters ago I got stuck out on the frozen tundra up there in the northwestern corner of Iowa, teaching corn-fed farm kids about the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Since Subcomandante Marcos instructs us to be a Zapatista wherever we happen to be, I took the opportunity to poke my nose into the local meat packing plant.

In the past decade, Cargill and Tyson have bought up most of the mom and pop packers in the region, busted the unions, and bought in the Mexicans. No pork chop or chicken wing gets packed anywhere in the USA today if it isn’t packed by Mexicans. They are the latest low folks on the immigration totem pole and just like the Micks and the Bohunks, the Polacks and the Krauts and the Squareheads and the Dagos, they too get to lose their limbs at the minimum wage.

I tell you, this shit stinks.

I'm tickled crimson to be receiving a 2005 Uppie from the good barristers at the ACLU but I’m even more overjoyed to be receiving it here atop Liberty Hill in San Pedro California where I was incarcerated by the United States Government between August 1964 and May 1965, the first U.S. resister to be sent to prison for refusing service in a military that was about to drop a billion tons of Napalm on our Vietnamese sisters and brothers.

Actually, I had first ripped up my draft card some years previous when Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the marines into Lebanon to protect a fascist Christian Falange regime, went south to Mexico, grew me a garden, built me a home and a family. But by 1963, we were hearing the strains of "We Shall Overcome" seeping through the static on our short wave and Dr. King was preaching his dream to a nation that was suddenly listening, After the Klan blew up four little girls in a Birmingham church; it was time to go home and resist.

I arrived in San Francisco in January 1964, picked up a picket sign, and marched around everywhere. We wanted our Freedom Now! Hundreds of us got arrested every weekend at the Sheraton Palace Hotel or up on Auto Row demanding that our black comrades be employed as chambermaids and Cadillac salespeoples. I Aint A-scared of Your Jails Cause I Want My Freedom. Now!

The FBI computers must have been powered by molasses back then and it was a wonder that Hoover ever got his guy. But when Special Agent Ralph J. Fink (that's right--Fink!) showed up on Mullen Avenue near the top of Bernal Hill, I knew the jig was up. Cool, you guys can drive me to work, I told the brown shoes--I had caught on with some penny ante subcontractor janitoring down at the Federal Building. One of my jobs was to wipe off the FBI transoms every night.

Me and this little Muslim cat James were systematically sabotaging the citadel, taking down the official portraits of LBJ that hung above every desk, scrawling "Viva Fidel!" in red crayon on the back, and hanging them back up. By the time I got busted, I think we had removed every one of those annoying black and yellow nuclear shelter signs from the premises.

I wasn't a pacifist. I always figured I'd pick up the gun to defend our own but not to kill or be killed in a capitalist war. So I copped to no contest. One of Vince Hallinan's boys was my lawyer.

My sentencing was set for late July and I put on a big show for the judge. I read him a declaration in my bad Purepecha, the language of my neighbors back home in the mountains of Michoacan, one they had written up themselves saying the Vietnamotas were not their enemies. I drove old William Sweigert batty by caterwauling verse after verse of Bob Dylan's "Masters of War." I read him Bertolt Brecht's poem "To Posterity"--"Ah what an 1age it is/ when to write a poem about a tree/ is a kind of crime/ because it is a silence/against injustice..."

I did everything but tap dance for Hizzoner and in the end, he stifled a yawn and sent me off to Terminal Island right here in San Pedro for two years, 18 months suspended provided I found work in "the national interest". I immediately applied to Julian Bond at the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in Atlanta for a job.

So the marshals snapped on the cuffs and they chained me up to a string of prisoners they were moving south. Whenever we got out of the car to piss along I-5, I rattled my chains energetically to the great consternation of my fellow convicts. I just wanted everyone to know that I was a prisoner of LBJ's bloody war.

The big gate at Terminal Island slammed shut behind me late on the afternoon of August 3rd 1964. 24 hours later, Lyndon Baines Johnson faked a phony attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin and began bombing mainland Vietnam. Although LBJ had to go to Congress to rubberstamp the Big Lie, the Gulf of Tonkin was where the war began. I was already locked up in TI. the only place to be, the first Hell-No-We-Won't-Goer on the record books.

Unlike its forebodingly grim name, Terminal Island turned out to be a median security joint for low-grade federal prisoners. I shared space with the mobster Mickey Cohn and a few minor Hollywood celebrities. I looked at my time there as a challenge to my organizing capabilities and soon formed the Convicts Committee Against U.S. Intervention (Anywhere.)

Some of my comrades were Maurice Ogden, a poet and film-maker incarcerated on perjury charges because he had signed a loyalty oath swearing that he was not now nor had even been a member of the Communist Party (he hadn’t either--Ogden was a Trot), Ben D., a middle-class black drug-runner who posited that his had been a political crime (it was too), and Blackie Campbell, doing his third bid for counterfeiting. Blackie had fought in the Spanish Civil War as a member of the Canadian McKinzie-Papineaux Brigade and was a repository of stories of popular struggle.

Blackie also showed me how to print leaflets on a bed of gelatin he had smuggled out of the kitchen and the leaflets were my waterloo. "I shed my blood for my country" the warden yelled at me. "Well, I'm in your fucking jail for mine" I shouted back, and the guards hammer locked me off to the Hole, the jail within the jail.

Isolation was hard time. They kept the lights on day and night and I began to lose track of where I was. I suppose I stayed half-way sane by repeating that mantra of Uncle Ho's: "being chained up/is a luxury/ for which to compete/ the chained at least/have a place to sleep."

They took me back to The Hole after the Free Speech Movement exploded up at Berkeley that fall. Said I was a pal of Mario Savio's and had to be watched.

The day I hit TI, my parole officer, a bullet-headed skunk named Victor Urban saw that I had a civil rights jacket and assigned me to the shoeshine stand in the guards' headquarters. Now this job was traditionally a prime smuggling conduit and true to racist profiling, it had always been occupied by a black man. In sending me up there, Victor Urban was setting me up to get shanked. So I went to the guy whose job I had been assigned, an old Central Avenue skag dealer named Bernard who had run on the streets with the great tenor player Dexter Gordon and jazz fixed it up between us.

Well, wouldn't you know it but my first customer up there was that bullet-headed skunkVictor Urban and I really fucked up his shoes. But pretty soon I was snapping and grinning and jeffing, putting a really high shine on them Florshiems. Captain Harry, a black guard who rumor had it was a hangman during the war in Germany, even tipped me a buck for my clowning.

I ran my time to ten months at TI. A lot of bad stuff happened. A sadistic dentist ripped out most of my teeth and broke my jaw. Folks ask me, my own mother in fact, why I'm toothless. Well, that’s why.

So my time got short and then it was done. I rolled up my bed, tied on my free shoes, and pocketed the Greyhound voucher north to San Fran. The bullet head walked me out to the prison gate. He didn't want to ever see me back at Terminal Island again. "Ross" he barked, "you know you never learned how to be a prisoner."

Put that on my tombstone, comrades! "He never learned how to be a prisoner!" Wow! Although we go to jail with depressing frequency in the class war, none of us are ever going to learn how to be prisoners.

Finally, I want to take one more minute to dedicate my Uppie to an old "companero de lucha" who just passed on to the big picket line in the sky. Efren Capiz was a campesino leader from Michoacan, a Purepecha Indian who spent decades fighting for his peoples' land. Capiz was neck-deep in a billion battles. I could sit here all night and tell you about them but maybe I'll write a book instead. Down the years, Capiz got to be known for his peculiar war cry: "Zapata Vive y La Lucha Sigue! – "Zapata Lives and the Struggle Goes on!" Only Capiz would keep repeating the "sigue" part until they had to peel him away from the microphone: "Zapata Vive y La Lucha Sigue – y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue y Sigue."

Efren Capiz was absolutely right. The struggle is never done.

Once again, my gratitude to the ACLU for this honor and their hospitality but most of all, for bringing me here to San Pedro to tell my tale tonight in the shadow of Terminal Island. It tastes like sweet revenge.

New Report Blasts Myth of "Smooth" Election

2004-12-08T07:43:00.000-08:00

Members of the nonpartisan Election Protection coalition have
released a preliminary report, "Shattering the Myth: An Initial Snapshot of Voter Disenfranchisement in the 2004 Elections."

"The idea that the election ran smoothly, the idea that the problems we saw in 2000 did not recur in 2004, is simply a crock," said Ralph G. Neas, President, People For the American Way Foundation. "Too many people faced too many barriers to the ballot box, from impossibly long lines to outright voter intimidation and misinformation. It's time to shatter the myth and work toward an election system that is more fair and more reliable for every American."

The report highlights widespread systemic problems, not just isolated incidents. In addition to the long lines and unreasonable waiting times that kept many people - disproportionately urban minority voters - from being able to vote, the top five problems overall were registration processing, absentee ballots, machine errors, voter intimidation and suppression, and problems with the use and counting of the new provisional ballots mandated under new federal law.

Among the most disturbing reports were the more than a thousand reports of voter suppression or intimidation at the polls, including:

Police stationed outside a Cook County, Illinois polling place requesting photo ID and telling voters if they had been convicted of a felony that they could not vote.
In Arizona voters at multiple polls were confronted by an individual wearing a black tee shirt with "US Constitution Enforcer" and a military-style belt that gave the appearance he was armed. He asked voters if they were citizens, accompanied by a cameraman who filmed the encounters.
Numerous incidents of intimidation by partisan challengers at predominately low-income and minority precincts
Misinformation campaigns delivered through anonymous flyers or phone calls with a variety of intimidating or vote-suppressing messages, advising voters to go to the polls on November 3rd rather than November 2, or giving other false information on voting rights. A few of the most outrageous examples include:
- "If you already voted in any election this year, you can't vote in the Presidential Election."
- "If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything you can't vote in the Presidential Election."
- "If you violate any of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your children will be taken away from you."

Jesse Jackson In Ohio

2004-12-02T09:01:00.000-08:00

On November 28, Rev. Jesse Jackson came to Ohio and raised the issue of the Ohio presidential election back into national attention. He said that A GOP "pattern of intentionality" was behind the suspect outcome, which cast serious doubt on George W. Bush's assumed victory.

"We can live with losing an election," Jackson said. "We cannot live with fraud and stealing." He stressed that the underlying issue was "the integrity of the vote" for which "too many have died."

Jackson will return to Ohio for a rally on the Statehouse Lawn at 1 p.m. on Saturday, 2004. Also speaking will be Greg Palast (journalist and author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy), Ian Solomon (Dean of Yale School of Law), Bill Moss (former Columbus school board member), Bob Fitrakis (Columbus Free Press), Reuben Herrera (Adelante - Latino/Latina Democrats), Anita Rios (Green Party), Cliff Arnebeck (lead litigant in the Contest of Election suit) and Jad Hummeidan (Council on American Islamic Relations).

Ohio Recount Sought By Greens & Libertarians

2004-11-11T20:47:00.000-08:00

Green candidated David Cobb has announced that he and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, are requesting a recount in Ohio. They need to raise $110,000 to pay for it. Dontations can be made at http://web.greens.org/c/cobb/supporters.cgi?function=donate.

In a joint statement the two candidates said, "Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote. Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. We must protect the rights of the people of Ohio, as well as all Americans, and stand up for the right to vote and the right for people’s votes to be counted. The integrity of the democratic process is at stake."

The Green Party also announced that hearings would be held by a number of citizens’ groups and voting rights this Saturday, November 13, in Columbus, Ohio to investigate voting irregularities and voter suppression in the Ohio 2004 general election. The hearings will be held from 1-4 p.m. at the New Faith Baptist Church, 955 Oak Street. Voters, poll workers, journalists and voting experts are invited to testify. A second hearing will be held on Monday at a location TBA, from 6-9 p.m.

Ohio Voter Suppression Close-Up

2004-10-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

Pate Nave, formerly the City Attorney for the Port of Los Angeles, was all set for a showdown today, in a hearing about Republican challenges to local voting rolls. Also ready were a number of well-established long-time voters--not just the new registrants whom the Republicans are especially focusing on. But a series of Federal Court decisions shut down the process, frustrating those who came down to testify on their experience. While they had their registrations individually restored, they were not allowed to publicly testify and expose the reckless nature of the Republican challenge process at the local level. As a result, thousands of bogus challenges from the GOP are expected at the polls on Tuesday.

"A number of people who had received challenges, including the military officer in charge of recruitment in Northern Ohio, showed up at the court," Nave told Random Lengths.

On Thursday, October 28, Judge Susan J. Dlott, of Federal District Court in Cincinnati, blocked hearings on challenges for six county election boards. The ruling was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the next morning. That afternoon, Judge Dlott issued an injunction blocking the challenge hearings statewide.

"People asked to speak anyway, but the two Republicans refused to agree to that," Nave said. Those who came to testify "were pretty upset about it," he added. "There were a number of telling stories."

"They challenged four professors at the University of Toledo, a Vietnam Vet with two purple hearts... A lot of students got challenged."

The challenges were generated by Republican mailing. Letters that came back were relied upon as "proof" that the registrations were suspect. But according to local newspaper reports, some or all of the letters were sent registered mail, meaning they had to be personally signed for. Added to that was a lot of bad addressing, a phenomena well-known to those who've ever done precinct-level election work.

"They sent a lot of it to apartments, where the apartment number wasn’t on the address," Nave said, as an example of how shoddy the contacting attempt was. "There was a lot of people who never got the mailing [on which the challenges were based. But when they sent out the challenges they got those. So you’ve got to wonder what was going on with that."

As a result, Nave said, "There’s a lot of people who are kind of upset about this," but there's not much time for anger now. "Our next issue is how people are going to get to vote on Tuesday."

Still, if the Ohio elections is close, a whirlwind of legal actions could ensue, and the legality of what Republicans have done so far will become a political (and perhaps a legal) issue.

As it is, "Several options being considered," Nave commented. "One is criminal prosecutions of each of the 6 challengers, each of whom signed challenges against 162 voters. They had no basis for it." In fact, Nave speculated, "They probably signed forms in blank, and they were filled out later."

"There’s also talk of civil rights actions against boards of elections, or specific members of board of elections that colluded with Republicans," Nave explained. Such action could proceed in both state and federal court.

A more immediate step would be a motion "to recoup the costs from the challengers because of these hearings." This is being considered by lawyers representing challenged votes, and by "the county prosecutor, too."

As it became obvious how flimsy they were, "The republicans had the chance to withdraw the challenges. But their higher-ups wouldn’t allow them to do that, so they’ve expended all this money for these things, all this staff time," Nave explained.

"The last one that I heard about was an action for defamation," Nave concluded. "The wording in the challenge was identical in all 35,000 cases. The Republican Party issued several press releases alleging widespread voter fraud. That’s pretty problematic, and is per se libel. So there are people talking about defamation actions against the Republican Party of Ohio."

When asked about the possibility of a RICO indictment, Nave responded, "I don't pretend to be an expert on that... Some local attorneys will probably figure that out."

What is clear is that some form of legal counter-attack is necessary in order to deter more voter suppression efforts in future elections.

Footnotes For "Cover Up: Bush's Missing Guard Duty"

2004-10-05T09:44:00.000-07:00

Footnotes for "Cover Up: Bush's Missing Guard Duty; What CBS News Didn't Find" are available on our website at http://www.randomlengthsnews.com/bush-guard/index.html.

Media Lies--Bush Gains Are Minimal

2004-09-07T14:55:00.000-07:00

For months now, the corporate media has been calling the Presidential race a tie--falsely, as reported in the most edition of Random Lengths News, "Kerry On Top: Don't Believe the Tripe." Kerry has held decided lead in the Presidential race since last May, particularly if one looks to the battleground states and the Electoral College, where the election will be decided. His lead slipped some in late August, and was expected to vanish temporarily in light of the Republican National Convention (RNC), only to re-emerge by mid-September.

Immediately after the RNC, we got the flip-side of long-time corporate media lie: a tie no longer, with Bush bursting far ahead. Time Magazine wrote, "For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows," and then went on to report an 11-point Bush lead over Kerry in a three-man race with Nader. Newsweek followed just after with a similar finding.

Both the polls and the spin were wrong. They were conducted during the convention--a big no-no--and produced internal results that immediately called them into question. Newsweek's sample was 38 percent Republican and 31 percent Democratic--ludicrously out-of-line with both long-term and short-term historical trends. With a more realistic breakdown--29 percent Republican and 33 percent Democratic--Bush's lead would be cut in half (or less, in a 2-person race). Taking the poll after the convention would show even greater erosion.

And so it did. Gallup's first poll after the convention showed a mere 2-point bounce--the lowest ever for an incumbent President since Gallup started measuring them. Among registered voters, this puts him just one point ahead of Kerry--49 percent to 48 percent, a statistical tie. Bush got the same 2-percent bounce among likely voters, where his lead is higher--seven percent--but most experts regard likely voter polls as relatively useless this far from election day. Plus, this year is likely to see millions of unlikely voters show up.

The biggest hurdle Kerry now faces is the hurdle Bush hasn't faced for the last four months--the hurdle of being labeled as behind in the race. Once again, the slacker son of privilege is being cut an enormous break.

Tuesday Demonstrations

2004-08-31T11:09:00.000-07:00

The A31 Coalition plans gatherings at barricades and spontaneous free-speech zones as well as no-permit direct actions:

9:30 a.m. At Bank of America financial roundtable, Tavern on the Green
All day. Actions at offices of corporations with Republican ties or those involved with the Iraq war, including: Carlyle Group, Fifth Avenue at 58th Street; The RAND Corp., 342 Madison Ave.; Chevron, 230 Park Ave., 49th to 50th streets; General Motors, 767 Fifth Ave., 58th to 59th streets, and a showroom, 599 Lexington Ave., 52nd to 53rd streets; Global Crossing, 435 W. 50th St., Ninth to Tenth avenues; Hummer of Manhattan, 55th Street and 11th Avenue

New York Metro Area Postal Unions demonstration, 2 p.m., Eighth Avenue at 31st Street
NARAL Pro-Choice America demonstration, 5 p.m., Union Square, North Plaza
The War Resisters League plans to gather at Ground Zero and march in a funeral procession to Madison Square Garden for a "die-in" at 7 p.m.
Convergence on Madison Square Garden, 7 p.m., to create a ring of "free-speech zones"
Nonpartisan "Mobilization 2004/Let Justice Roll: Faith and Community Voices Against Poverty" rally from 7 to 9 p.m. at Riverside Church, 490 Riverside Dr.
From 9 to 10 p.m., New Yorkers, holding flashlights, to line Broadway from West 72nd to West 125th streets to put focus on poverty and social justice issues.

600 Arrested As Protests Continue in New York

2004-08-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

Democracy Now reports:

600 Arrested As Protests Continue in New York

Bush's Ultimate Flip-Flop

2004-08-30T17:21:00.000-07:00

"Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. "
-- G.W. Bush on NBC's Today Show, August 30, 2005

"This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win."
-- G.W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2001

Highlighted by Kos on DailyKos.

"In this great struggle, we need a commander in chief who is a beacon, not a weather vane," said Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico in remarks prepared for delivery to delegates gathered four miles from the site where terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.
--"GOP Assails Kerry As Convention Begins," by David Espo AP Special Correspondent

Gay Marriage Equated To Holocaust By RNC Opener

2004-08-30T06:41:00.000-07:00

The opening invocation at the Republican National Convention will be given by a Mormon woman who has equated support for gay marriage to support for Hitler and the Holocaust. Sheri Dew is President of the Mormon-owned Deseret Book.

"At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family--but maybe not," Dew said in a recent speech.

Her remarks ignored the fact that gays were among the first victims of Hitler, while Mormon Church leaders supported him. Helmuth Hubener, a Mormon youth who secretely fought against Hitler, was excommunicated by the Mormon Church for "conduct unbecoming a member of the church" before the Nazis executed him. Deseret Book has sold three different books about Hubener.

It seems Ms. Dew doesn't know which side she's on.

More at Eschaton and Jesus' General.

Monday Demonstrations Protesting RNC

2004-08-29T22:53:00.000-07:00

Disabled American Veterans rally, 10 a.m., Eighth Avenue and 31st Street
The Still We Rise Coalition, more than 40 New York City groups covering issues including immigration, housing/homelessness, health care/AIDS, welfare reform, education and criminal justice/civil rights and liberties, gathers at 11 a.m. at Union Square and marches toward Madison Square Garden for rally
Billionaires for Bush hold "Vigils for Corporate Welfare," noon at Union Square and 4 p.m. at United Nations.
Jews for Racial and Economic Justice rally, 1 to 4 p.m., Plaza Hotel, Fifth Avenue and Central Park South
NYC AIDS Housing Network and Hip Hop Summit Action Network rally, 1 p.m., Union Square to Eighth Avenue and 31st Street
Poor People's Economic Human Rights rally, 1 p.m., Dag Hammarskjold Plaza

400,000 March In NYC Against War

2004-08-29T16:45:00.000-07:00

Overview of Sunady's march

This is what democracy looks like.

One Thousand Coffins...

Vastly exceeding expectations of 250,000 partipants, the march organized by United for Peace and Justice drew 400,000 people to streets and sidewalks of New York. A Continuous update of events is available at the Portland Indymedia site, as the New York site went down.

In a move widely condemned by civil libertarians, organizers were denied their request to hold a rally in Central Park, a denial of First Amendment rights that was upheld by low-level courts.

In a pre-march gathering, filmmaker Michael Moore addressed the crowd. "We are the majority," Moore told them. "A majority of this country opposes this war ... a majority of this country never voted for this administration."

"We are saying 'no' to the Bush agenda, 'no' to the war in Iraq, 'no' to the regime change by our government, 'no' to preemptive war, 'no' to the economic policies," said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice.

Although the permit for the after-march rally was denied, thousands of people are gathering in Central Park in an informal show of strength and defiance of the war on American civil liberties.

Reporting by cell phone just after 4 p.m. New York Time, an Oregonian demonstrator told Portland Indymedia there were 'lots of people' in the part, with only 4 officers watching over people as she approached from Columbus Circle.

First hand reports and comments are available here and here from DailyKos.

Sunday Demonstrations

2004-08-29T13:44:00.000-07:00

Demonstrations planned for Sunday in New York City include:

United for Peace and Justice, 10 a.m., gathers in the area north of 14th Street and Seventh Avenue. At noon, march up Seventh Avenue past Madison Square Garden, turn east on 34th Street, march to Fifth Avenue, then march down Fifth Avenue to 23rd Street and then march down Broadway back to Union Square
Code Pink Women for Peace rally, 8 a.m., Riverside Park, Eleanor Roosevelt Corner
Christian Defense Coalition demonstration, 2 p.m., Church Street between Liberty and Vesey streets
Billionaires for Bush's "Million Billionaire March," noon, Plaza Hotel, Fifth Avenue and 59th Street

Critical Mass Bike Rally Draws 5,000; 264 Arrests

2004-08-29T12:57:00.000-07:00

New York City (NYC) saw its largest Critical Mass bike rally ever on Friday, August 27, with over 5,000 participants in the 2-hour event, highlighting a week of activities hosted by Time's Up, an NYC-based environmental organization. During and after the event, New York police arrested 264 participants, according to a report in Newsday.

"Video of the evening being processed by the Indymedia Center right now shows the regrettably predictable violent nature of the arrests," according to an early report on the New York City Indymedia website. "Caught on tape are images of protesters being thrown off their bicycles, heads beaten into the asphalt, then cuffed with plastic flexi-cuffs. Pedestrians milling about also unfortunately fell victim to the cops, getting pulled off the street and arrested too," the report stated.

Founded in 1992, Critical Mass holds monthly bike rallies on every continent except Antarctica, with the vast majority in Europe (139 rides) and North America (208 rides). Cyclists ride through the streets disregarding traffic signals in a form of non-violent civil disobedience, creating a temporary liberated space and reclaiming the streets from the monopoly of fossil fuel car traffic. (Article on Critical Mass's 10th Anniversary here.)

Although technically illegal, it is now commonplace for police to accompany and facilitate Critical Mass rides. There were scores of arrests of Critical Mass participants in Los Angeles during the 2000 Democratic National Convention, when police suddenly, without warning, switched from facilitating the ride to arresting participants.

Swift Boat Lies Compiled

2004-08-26T19:43:00.000-07:00

A comprehensive list of the Swift Boat Liars, with refuting evidence for their main claims is available here, in a diary entry at Daily Kos. Read this piece, and you'll know more about the issue than all the talking heads on cable.

New Yorkers Support Protesters Over Mayor, Courts

2004-08-26T16:27:00.000-07:00

"The city is rolling out the red carpet for the Republican delegates, but most New Yorkers would roll out the green carpet of Central Park for the anti-Republican demonstrators," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. The Mayor and the courts have denied permission for demonstrations in Central Park, effectively repealing the First Amendment.

A just-released Quinnipiac Poll found that:

71 percent of city voters say demonstrators should be allowed in Central Park;
81 percent approve of lawful demonstrations during the convention;
68 percent approve of non-violent civil disobedience;
11 percent plan to join demonstations;
25 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job as President;
70 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as President.

In February, 2002, 68 percent approved, and just 23 percent disapproved.

Moral: Go to New York when you are hot, not when it is hot.

MoveOn Is NOT A 527

2004-08-26T15:56:00.000-07:00

Atrios reminds us that, unlike the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth," :

MoveOn PAC

But, of course, Atrios is not real journalist. What does he know?

GOP Delegates Meet With Anti-Bush Signs

2004-08-25T11:13:00.000-07:00

"In case their discontent isn't already clear, protesters are spelling it out. "Stop Bush Now" signs and other anti-GOP messages are appearing throughout the city well before delegates arrive for the Republican National Convention, which begins Monday," reports Sara Kubler for Associated Press here.

"Bright blue tarps, painted with glaring yellow letters, are going up on dozens of rooftops in Brooklyn, under the flight paths into busy New York airports. Thousands of delegates and convention guests peering down at the city might see messages like 'No more years' and 'Re-defeat Bush.'"

A wide variety of signs are going up everywhere...

"'Let no Republican look anywhere in this city without seeing our message,' says one site, promoting an image of a black 'W' inside a red circle with a slash through it. 'Let's make the entire city our canvas and let the RNC know that they've grossly miscalculated their choice of venue.'"

Political Timing of Terror Alerts

2004-08-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

JuliusBlog has a snapshot overview chart and detailed timeline looking at the timing of terror alerts.

The work is far from scientific--though the chart clearly shows that Bush's popularity spiked three times: just after 9/11, just after the invasion of Iraq, and just after Saddam Hussein was captured.

The relationship of terror alerts is murkier, though their increased frequency is clear. The timeline does show that terror alerts frequently appear soon after some really bad news for the Bush Administration. But there's been a lot of bad news for the Bush Administration for the last year and a half. Still, seeing all the events placed in a timeline context gives a very clear sense of how terror alerts have regularly distracted attention when the Bush Administration was feeling some heat. It also highlights how often the alerts have been issued on dubious grounds.

Freedom Takes A Beating In The New Iraq

2004-08-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

Three recent stories highlight the embattled nature of freedom in Iraq:

Iraqi Government Shuts Al-Jazeera Station (Associated Press)
Iraq Imposes Death Penalty (Associated Press)
Iraq's Labor Upsurge Wins Support from U.S. Unions -- By David Bacon

Convention Ends On Note of Unity--For Now

2004-07-30T17:05:00.000-07:00

By Frank O'Brien

BOSTON -- July 29

In a cascade of balloons, confetti and pounding rock music, the 2004 Democratic convention ended at 1100 PM eastern time. Several themes were constant throughout the convention: the injustice of the 2000 election result, the failures of the Bush administration, the unity of Democrats around their ticket and standard-bearer John Kerry and, finally, the need to work from the morning after the convention to the evening the polls close on November 2.

US Senators, Governors, representatives, state leaders, party veterans, new democrats, progressive leaders, talking like local ward bosses, urging the delegates and activists to get out there and turn out the vote.

The value of the convention has been questioned as an audience draw on television. At the California State delegation breakfast Thursday morning, former California House Speaker and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said (not from the podium but in an interview at the back of the room) that the 4-day convention is obsolete and should be replaced with "a reality TV show" format.

Without question the 4 days have created a strong common bond among core party activists and sent the delegates back to their respective states with clear direction to make it happen on behalf of the party.

The unity of purpose puts several important unresolved issues on hold. US Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said during a brief conversation on the convention floor Thursday evening that progressives have been very forgiving of the mainstream party, by tolerating votes in favor of the Iraq war for example, in the name of
victory.

At very well-attended Thursday afternoon lunch of the National Stonewall Democratic organization, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said emphatically that any differences that exist between the Kerry/Edwards platform and the gay / lesbian / bisexual / transgendered community should be set aside during the campaign, but "On the day after inauguration we will be right back aggravating them". In this context, GLBT issues are but one of the most visible and potentially divisive of the cultural questions that will be prominent in the campaign and over the next 4 years.

In certain respects, the 2004 presidential election is shaping up as a national referendum on the bill of rights, with the very different official positions of the two parties, obscuring significant differences within the parties about how best to balance free expression and public safety, cultural values and individual freedom.

Urban issues, problems of the inner city and race-related matters were kept in the background. Kerry sought to establish his credentials through the personal endorsements of African American shipmates. Although it was notable that the crew assembled on the podium for Thursday's acceptance speech, the convention has been marked by prominent speaking slots for African Americans.

Local Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald was given convention prime time - Thursday evening when the hall was packed with delegates. The speech itself was cut to fit the overall convention themes (Transcript below), but the highly visible scheduling suggests both Kerry's confidence in Rep. Millender-McDonald and the critical importance of the African-American voting bloc. As Jesse Jackson reminded the California delegation at the Thursday breakfast, "in 2000, Bush won the white vote".

Within the dynamic is a Democratic strategy that appears to include a key principle: position Kerry as a strong leader for moderate, independent and swing voters, especially in the so-called battleground states.

Missing from this formulation is an articulated effort to drive turnout and increase participation among voters. While the convention rallied the troops and reached out to the moderates, it did little to engage the uninterested.

While the conventional wisdom is that the 2004 presidential race will be very close, there may be a decisive Kerry victory in the making, especially if these disaffected voters recognize their stake in a democratic victory.

And one piece of evidence to support the theory: Friday, immediately after the end of the Democratic convention, President Bush took to the campaign trail with a rally in Missouri. As shown on FOX TV, directly behind the President's shoulder, as he was speaking about his accomplishments, a young girl in the audience fidgeted, yawned and conspicuously checked her watch. She seemed to be asking "When will this guy stop bothering us and just leave the stage?"

=====================================================
CONGRESSWOMAN JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD'S SPEECH

BOSTON, July 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald's speech before the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, July 29, 2004:

My fellow Democrats! My fellow Californians! Fellow Americans! The families of my district, like families across America, want leaders who understand their struggles -- who not only speak about their values, but who actually share their values. And nothing reveals the values of a nation more than how it treats its children. I am here tonight to re-affirm John Kerry's commitment to our children.

As Democrats, we believe that a strong America begins with strong families -- with healthy and safe children. And we believe that when it comes to our children, America can and must do better!

Tonight, nearly 8.5 million American children are without health insurance. We can -- and we must -- do better!

Tonight, more than 12 million American children are living in poverty. We can -- and we must -- do better!

Tonight, 29 million American children are living in areas with unhealthy air, increasing their risk for diseases such as asthma. We can -- and we must -- do better!

Tonight, 35 million American children suffer from hunger. We can -- and we must -- do better!

For the past four years, these children have been neither seen nor heard. Tonight, Democrats say to America's children and their parents: "We see you. We hear you. And help is on the way."

We believe that in the richest, most powerful nation on earth, that every child deserves the chance to live the American dream! That every child deserves quality health care! That every child deserves clean water to drink and clean air to breathe! And that no child - no child - should ever go to bed hungry in America!

In the Senate, John Kerry fought to pass the largest investment in children's health care in three decades! His fight led to the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that provides health care for five million children!

As husbands and as fathers, John Kerry and John Edwards know that children are a blessing. And they have the plan to keep all of America's children healthy and safe. John Kerry and John Edwards have the plan to expand health coverage to all America's children! John Kerry and John Edwards have the education plan that protects Head Start, and gives our most vulnerable children the nutrition they need! John Kerry and John Edwards have the plan to strengthen and enforce the environmental laws that protect our children from pollutants and disease! And John Kerry and John Edwards know that children are healthier when their parents have jobs. So they have the plan to help small businesses that create most of the jobs in America by cutting their taxes and reforming health care so small businesses can prosper.

John Kerry and John Edwards have the vision, the values, and the plan to build a stronger America with strong families and healthy children. We must speak up for the children who cannot speak for themselves. We must stand up and vote for the children who cannot.

Are you ready -- with President John Kerry and Vice President John Edwards -- to build an America that once again values our children? Let's go out and vote to bring America an administration who will embody these values that build strong families and healthy children!

God bless you! God bless our children! And God bless America!

Source: Democratic National Convention Committee

Kerry's Speech

2004-07-30T10:51:00.000-07:00

Complete text is here.

Key Themes, Core Strategy Unite Democrats

2004-07-29T04:41:00.000-07:00

But Underlying Contradictions Remain Between Activist Base And Corporate Funders

By Frank O'Brien
Boston - July 28

Today the key themes of Democrats campaign to win back the White House came into focus.
     - Jobs
     - Health Care
     - Education

And the Iraq war.

In forums, corridor conversations, flyers, position papers and speeches from the podium, Democrats advanced the case that President Bush has failed. And not simply that Bush has made mistakes or implemented ineffective policies. The Democrat's foundation case is that Bush has fundamentally mislead the American people on core issues of economic policy and terrorism.

That is the first part of their argument. The second part is that Democrats offer hope, an affirmative solution to the concerns of all Americans.

The unanimity on this core strategy is impressive. Far from chafing under the restraint of a common message, Democrats are willingly unified in their focus on victory in November.

Yet the stump speech rhetoric and strategic assessments have a disconnect from a number of issues that concern many activists and progressives here: starting with the question of how to preserve individual liberty in a time of terrorism, and beyond that the level of corporate influence in the political decison-making system.

So great is the desire to remove Bush from power that the Democrats have willingly and with complete unanimity set aside fundamental questions of how a party with an strong progressive agenda can be funded to a great degree by the very interests they seek to reform.

Ralph Nader's name has been greeted with derision at every mention.

A number of Washington, DC think-tanks have run seminars setting out the detailed measures that would implement the agenda based on core concerns of health care, jobs and education.

The Democrats are unified. They have a solid policy foundation for core set of issues. The incumbent is vulnerable. As Sen. Diane Feinstein said at the morning breakfast for California delegates, never have the indicators looked so poor for an incumbent and so encouraging for a challenger.

Now the question for Thursday. Can John Kerry deliver?

STREET THEATER

As always, the best action is in the streets. A rally co-sponsored by the ACLU and Amnesty Intentional was held Wednesday in drizzling rain at the Copley Square Park across from the main delegate hotels.

Using art as part of the event, the organizers had set up a schematic prison, with three people lined up, each holding a panel. The first had printed the saying of Pastor Niemller (Berlin, 1939):

     First they came for the Jews
     But I did not speak out because I was not a Jew
     Then they came for the Communists
     And I did not speak out because I was not a communist
     Then they came for the trade-unionists,
     And I did not speak out because I was not a trade-unionist
     Then they came for the Catholics
     And I did not speak out because I was not Catholic
     And then they came for me
     And there was no one left to speak out for me.

The second had a woman in prison jumpsuit behind a cage and the third was a mirror.

MAYOR HAHN SPEAKS TO CONVENTION.

On Wednesday night Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn spoke to the convention. The Mayor was very well received, especially by the California delegation. These were his remarks:

The Honorable James Hahn

Democratic National Convention

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

BOSTON, July 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of a speech by The Honorable James Hahn, before the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, July 28, 2004:

Good evening! I was ten years old when I attended my first Democratic Convention in my hometown of Los Angeles, where a son of Massachusetts was nominated to run for president. That man was John F. Kennedy.

Tonight, I am proud to be a California delegate here to nominate another son of Massachusetts to be our next President -- John Kerry.

I know that John Kerry understands one of the greatest challenges facing America's cities -- making our communities safe from crime. As Mayor of Los Angeles, I have made this my top priority. And here's why: I've talked with too many parents who have lost their children to gun violence. I've met too many mothers who make their children sleep in cast-iron bathtubs to protect them from stray bullets; too many young people who have simply given up hope.

John Kerry worked with President Clinton to put thousands more police officers on our streets. Crime went down, and our economy improved. Our country's current leadership has shifted away from that commitment. And we need it now more than ever.

Not only are cities struggling to fight crime, our local police and firefighters have become America's first responders. We're proud to be part of our homeland security efforts. But cities can't face this challenge alone. We need a president who will work with cities to prevent terrorism in our neighborhoods -- whether by foreign terrorists or local street gangs. We need a president who understands that small investments in after-school programs pay huge dividends.

In Los Angeles, we stretched our budget to put more officers on the street and to give young people opportunities to make positive choices. It paid off: violent crime was down last year. We can't afford to lose that momentum.

I'm proud to partner with the L.A.P.D. and a community that wants its neighborhoods back. I have been proud to partner with Senator Dianne Feinstein to ban assault weapons and with Senator Barbara Boxer to increase access to after-school programs. And, I'm looking forward to working with the Kerry White House.

Earlier this year, I visited the F.D.R. Memorial where the words "Freedom from Fear" are etched in stone. Freedom from fear -- what a gift that would be to our country. I know that John Kerry and John Edwards will work with every city in America to meet that goal.

We must fight like we've never fought before to put them in the White House.

I know we'll do it, and I'm looking forward to a better America!

Thank you!

"America's First Black President" Missing On Network TV

2004-07-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

For the first time in the TV age, a convention keynote speech was not broadcast on network TV--a symptom of all that's wrong with our media system, writes  John Nichols at The Online Beat.

And what a speech it was! [Full text here][Video available here]. The consensus is that it was the best keynote speech since Mario Cuomo in 1984--20 years ago. Barak Obama, an Illinois State Senator, is positioned to become the next U.S. Senator from Illinois, as the Illinois GOP flounders to find a candidate willing to run against him after their millionaire primary winner withdrew in a sex scandal. There is already buzz about his potential to become America's first African-American President--even from conservatives.

Nichol's writes:

      "The failure to broadcast the speech by a man many believe could
      be the country's first African-American president struck even some
      media veterans as troubling. On ABC's 'The View,' co-host Meredith
      Vieira spoke of how, 'After (Obama) got done speaking, I had chills'
      and complained about the decision of the networks to neglect the
      keynote address. 'He is a man that America needed to see,' she said.

      "By any measure, Vieira is right.

      "But don't expect broadcast television to get the message. The
      networks have replaced the civil and democratic values that once
      played a role in decisions about what to cover with commercial
      and entertainment values that dictate a denial of seriousness or
      perspective when it comes to political stories."

Obama gave a brilliant speech that used his own family story as a gateway into a powerful re-articulation of the liberal vision of America as a land of justice and inclusion, as well as opportunity. In contrast to the way today's military and veterans are being treated, Obama recalled the social contract that his mothers parents had:

      "The day after Pearl Harbor he 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 in search of opportunity."

Then, toward the end, he said:

      "[A]longside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient
      in the American saga. A belief that we are 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 her prescription and has to choose
      between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if
      it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being
      rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that
      threatens my civil liberties. It's 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.

      "Yet 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's the United States of
      America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino
      America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.
      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."

The speech--like the speaker--was so impecable, that in response, conservatives can only attempt, vainly, to claim that Obama's liberal vision is actually a conservative one. Markos at the Daily Kos debunks them.

Dean Rallies His Troops To Continue Fighting

2004-07-28T08:23:00.000-07:00

By Frank O'Brien
BOSTON - July 27.

Campaign for America's Future, a Washington CD based progressive political action group, organized a rally Tuesday afternoon featuring Gov. Howard Dean.

The rally was held at a hotel in Cambridge, across the Charles River from Boston. The line extended entirely around the building as people waited patiently to pass through several security checkpoints.

Once inside, the crowd was happy, expectant, waiting for the return of their campaign hero Governor Dean. The Dean audience was a mix of graying radicals, committed young students and serious-minded people concerned about the direction of their country—a marked contrast to the credentialed delegates, a "new Democrat" crowd where ambitious lawyers and hopeful bankers outnumber old civil rights veterans, union regulars and populist farmers.

Bang. Governor Dean, like a shot out of big cannon, takes the stage and proceeds to tear the room down. In a remarkable performance of effective rhetoric, speaking directly from a core of conviction, humor and hard-earned experience, Dean at once re-ignated the essential themes that propelled his campaign and urged his followers to unite behind John Kerry and defeat President Bush.

Alternating between forceful assertion and low-key, almost conversational dialogue, Dean weaved a story of national loss and redemption that kept the audience spellbound. His words were punctuated by vigorous karate chops and other kinetic gestures in a kind of personal judo style. The overall impression is of a man with very solid ethical beliefs who is not afraid to give them full voice, a kind of unscripted intelligent communication that connected immediately with his supporters.

The rapport between Dean and the audience was remarkable—affection, respect and familiarity that bespoke months of intense, shared experience on the campaign. There was complete agreement on the imperative of defeating President Bush, and Dean was unstinting in his endorsement of Kerry.

In sharp-edged language Dean echoed what former President Clinton had said Monday night about the Republican's strategic need to divide the electorate: When campaigns stop being about "Guns, God and Gays", Dean said, and start being about "Jobs, Healthcare and education", then the Democratic, progressive vision will be meaningful for many more Americans.

Turning to the 3 months between now and the election, Dean went beyond urging his followers simply to vote for Kerry. He forcefully urged them to organize into effective community groups, to use the internet for creating wide networks of common purpose, to focus on executing the basic, bread-and-butter work of electing a candidate.

Dean had touched a resonant place in the audience. The crowd seemed deeply engaged and committed to that task he had established.

Later Tuesday, Governor Dean's speech to the convention was a far milder, more nuanced version of the tour-de-force delivered during the day. Nonetheless, in Governor Dean and his supporters, the Kerry campaign has a powerful advantage.

Governor Dean's line of attack both strongly mobilizes an important segment of the Democratic voting base and effectively neutralizes the appeal of Ralph Nader among progressive, independent-minded voters.

In his speech, Dean observed that the most underrepresented demographic group in America is working class and low- to middle-class white men in the South and midwest. The long-term fallout of civil rights, Vietnam, the George Wallace campaign, the Nixon southern strategy and the consolidation of these trends under Reagan has been to effectively disenfranchise these voters. Simply configured, the Democratic party has California, Chicago, the Northeast, a majority of women, many college towns and all African Americans. The Republicans have everything else.

As these Democratic constituencies shape the party in their image, and Republicans tailor their programs to benefit a very small economic and social elite, that leaves an entire segment of middle-class, middle-American white men with no effective political representation.

Whether the model of political engagement that Dr. Dean advocates can accomplish in the South and Midwest on a lasting basis what Clinton was able to accomplish by a unique blending of background and political skill remains an open question.

But for now, he and his followers are motivated to send Bush back to Texas and Chaney permanently to "an undisclosed location."

Day One: Being There

2004-07-27T09:36:00.000-07:00

By Frank O'Brien
BOSTON - July 27.

Micro-observations on the staging of a national-level drama, in another waterfront city where "the downtown could finally be reconnected to the waterfront," and a local dedication ceremony defines what politics is all about.

THE NIGHT BEFORE

Sunday night, I was contemplating a cooler full of beer in a local Boston bar: bottles aligned in careful rows, generous quantities of ice packed in around the sides, the bright tinfoil neck wrappers the only part visible above the ice chips. The party is about to start. It wasn't difficult to forsee the future on Friday morning: the littered floor, half-drained bottles and crumpled cups, the thirsts and laughs and bitterness and rancors the beer cooler will supply, but for a moment, all is chilled, neat and ready for the party. The end is contained in the beginning.

THE DAY OF DELEGATION BREAKFAST

Monday morning, the huge California delegation convenes at 9am in the Westin Copley Plaza ballroom. Groups cluster around tables in friendly conversation, sitting strictly with familar faces. It's as if every local restaurant from all over California has relocated its political breakfast table to Boston.

Congressman Bob Matsui is talking to a cluster of reporters in the back - up close his face is smooth, almost tranparent, his eyes dark at once encouraging and sharply appraising. He has a slight but definite reserve - a carefullness that must come from years of dealing with the press and public. It seems spontaneous insight, alarming critical humor and unexpected irony are not among the Congressman's prefered ways of self presentation. This restraint probably accounts for his success as an elected representative.

As he is about to answer a question, Chairman Art Torres asks for the third time that everyone is to be seated - Congressman Matsui's wife takes him by the arm and firmly directs him towards the table. He complies to his wife's direction without resistance. This may be evidence of another reason for his success.

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

930 am is slotted for the daily press briefing. The room is packed. Virtually every seat is taken and reporters are lined up along three walls. At the back a square slightly raised platform is crowded with a cluster of cameras and electronic gear. Thirty minutes late, Stephanie Culter, the Kerry campaign press secretary, takes the podium and begins a recitation of the day's events. Her presentation is an exercise in defining the campaign themes. The reporters appear disinterested, like an early morning class at a party college, the weary students taking notes at the compulsory economics course taught by an uninspired instructor.

The disconnect expands after Cutler introduces a Monday night featured speaker, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio. Rep. Jones bounces to the podium and launches into an effervescent stump speech - the presentation certain to earn applause at the district Chamber breakfast or Rotary Club lunch. As Rep. Jones emotes and strives for an eloquent cadence designed to sweep a hometown audience along in a wave of irresistable assent, the assembled press betrays no reaction .. none ... just the quiet scribbling of pens on paper. As a puzzled Rep. Jones asks the crowd if they want to hear more, press aide Cutler gestures for her to step down so the program may proceed.

This group takes pride in its reserve and casual indifference. They do look like a serious, intelligent crew, the nerds who ran the school paper 20-years on. The neglect of fashion is conspicuous. Many in the crowd of print journalists look like they could have slept in their clothes. Later, at the Fleet Center, the TV anchors are a contrast - these well-constructed people look like they stepped directly from an exclusive spa onto the convention floor. TV news people seem to be the real attractions here - their trailing entourage and bulky, high-tech gear dominating the convention floor and corridors. In contrast to the politicians - who give off a vibe that combines accute power-status anxiety with an aggressive stance - the TV news personalities glide along on a gentle air buffer of comfortable self regard.

The convention center is a maze of concrete corridors and a warren of electronic cables, all converging on the sleek, pristine, opulent stage that is the focus of cameras from all directions.

The hall a few hours before the convention: pale blue and deep red - bright TV lights and a sound system with a mega-bass lowrider speaker effect. It's like the inside of an electronic ark, with technicians all around making adjustments to the cameras, mikes, platforms and network anchor booths.

Ian Sherwood is managing floor coverage for BBC News. The Kerry campaign has no incentive to provide foreign journalists time with the candidate - as they are focused on reaching the US audience. Sherwood describes his UK audience as interested in Kerry as an alternative to Bush, a US President who got their Prime Minister in a bit of trouble. Asked what are the concerns of viewers in the pubs, Sherwood thinks that domestic issues may be more important to UK viewers than the Iraq war. Interest rates are rising and that is putting a squeeze on many middle-class homeowners. Even in England, politics in local.

GHOSTS OF THE CELTICS AND BRUINS

Walking down one back corridor in the Fleet Center, I found an obsure steel door with the tag Fleet Center carpentry shop. Bill Hogan of Carpenters Local 33 showed me around the workspace. Along with the saws and benches and tools, the walls were plastered with stickers and photos from Boston sports teams - Bruins and Celtics - going back over 20 years. "So this is the place where you guys fabricated all those dead spots on the Boston Garden's parquet floor" I said. Bill replied "What dead spots?"

GREENWAY DEDICATION

At Park Event, Mayor Calls for End to All Task Forces and Committees: Start Work

Monday morning featured the dedication of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Sen. Edward Kennedy gave a gentle and loving tribute to his mother, full of humor and inspirational recollection. The Greenway is on the site of a former elevated highway that circled downtown Boston, now running underground thanks to the Big Dig.

Boston Mayor Menino spoke, enthusiastic that "the downtown could finally be reconnected to the waterfront", but, the Mayor warned, "it's time to end all those task forces and working groups and committees and get down to work."

The best speaker was Eunice Kennedy Shrirver, Gov. Schwartzeneger's mother-in-law. Mrs. Shriver, although frail, evoked her mother Rose in clear, direct words - a recollection that combined affection, unembarassed idealism and a challenge to the living to overcome obstacles and make a difference. The difference between Mrs Shriver's speech and the poll-tested equivocations of most modern politicians: its salsa picante vs mayonaise.

The content and rhythm of her remarks - and her distinctive Boston accent - brought alive her brother, the late President John F. Kennedy. It was uncanny - I thought - that this is the sort of speech JFK would have delivered if he had lived thirty more years.

As the speakers had praised the Kennedy brothers, Mrs. Shriver reminded the audience that women could accomplish something too, and she urged young women to strive for their dreams, using the Greenway as an example of what can be accomplished by dedicated action.

City and state officials have agreed to establish the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, an independent non-profit organization, to run the parkland corridor. This approach resolves a series of turf battles over the site between the City, State and Turnpike Authority. A recent study by the Boston Foundation concluded that the $20 billion dollars in improvements at the harbor and waterfront have generated a "huge and growing payoff" for the substantial investment of public funds.

THE PEACEMAKERS

Carrying a huge wooden, hand carved peace symbol aloft on a 5-foot pole, Paul Loveless stands out among the crowds of earnest, well-groomed hurrying Democrats. His hair is white, in strands and whisps that spread thoughtlessly to his shoulders. Paul is blind, I see, as I stop him to talk along a wide sunny stretch of Boylston St. in the Back Bay. In his other hand he holds a white cane, with a small American flag bound to the top with duct tape.

Paul is accompanied by two men and two women, members of the DC Anti-War Movement, who have come to Boston to carry their message to the delegates.

"This flag stands for peace, justice and human rights" Paul says, "Bush has thrown it in the sewer." I see that he is missing three fingers on each hand - he's working with just his thumb and forefinger. "The KKK did that to Paul" one of his friends says.

Paul explains: "I was on a march in Georgia and a group of guys asked me if I was marching against racism. I said I was. They got mad, called me a "white nigger", a "copperhead" and then started throwing bricks at me, saying "here's your ticket back to Africa".

Paul said that injuries in that fight lead first to infection, then to gangrene that wasn't treated. "It was painful" he said, but "If I can do this in my condition, anybody can."

For the others in Paul's group, the sentiments were unanimous. Jim MacDonald, of the Anti-War network, said Democrats were not enthusiastic about Kerry but were unified in their feelings about President Bush. For MacDonald, the major parties are two sides of the same coin - dominated by corporate money and special interests. "I'm prepared to spend my life outside the system" said MacDonald, in his late twenties, "this is a long-term struggle". Paul and the others nodded on agreement.

Ironically, "copperheads" were northern Democrats who opposed the end of slavery and the civil war. Many were recent Irish immigrants who feared free negro labor - "We won't fight to free the nigger" was one of their slogans.

Setting The Scene

2004-07-26T08:12:00.000-07:00

Report by Frank O'Brien

From the convention city....

At the first of our nation's 2004 ultimate trade shows, Democrats from Alaska to Beacon Hill converge in Boston today to kickoff the final fall rollout of their newest product: the Kerry / Edwards presidential ticket.

But despite the immediate electric atmosphere in well-appointed hotel lobbies - a mix of federal power, media celebrity and country carnival - in the post 9/11 world, anxiety over security and terrorist threat seem the prevailing mode.

The mythology and intrigue of conventions past - the legendary political bosses who could alter history and make a man's fortune with a flick of a cigar in a smoke-filled room - seem as relevant in Boston 2004 as telegraphs, cross-country railroad trains, daguerreotype photographs and straw boater hats.

On a cool, cloudy summer Sunday, final preparations for the 2004 Democratic convention are in place. Most conspicuous, the division of the city into two parts: the "hard zone" (using the term of Boston security planners) immediately surrounding the Fleet Center, and the "soft zone," outside the perimeter established by high fences, checkpoint gates and closed off streets.

Hologram identification cards, patrols of police, buzzing helicopters, all combine to create a sense of institutional obsession with security, a reaction immediately tempered by recognition of what the nation experienced on September 11.

Most significant is the strict limits on access to the convention center in the interest of antiterrorism. National electronic media with massive trailers packed with electronic gear are established within the "hard zone," positioned to beam the Democrats carefully focus-group calibrated message to the country at large.

Meanwhile, the loosely organized clusters of citizens expressing alternative views have been given a designated protest zone of 26,000 sq. ft offering only a fleeting view of delegates as they file from tour buses directly into the convention hall.

Local chapters of the Lawyers Guild and the ACLU have filed an appeal of US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock's decision late last week upholding the constitutionality of the segregated free speech area. Issuing that ruling, Judge Woodlock stated "[o]ne cannot conceive of what other elements you would put in place to make a space more of an affront to the ideal of free expression than the designated demonstration zone."

The free speech zone is immediately alongside a large concrete and steel subway wall and is enclosed by mesh fencing. Groups involved have announced their intention to boycott the designated zone. As of Sunday there has been no ruling on the appeal.

For more information: http://boston.indymedia.org

LNG at DNC

In its Sunday, July 25 recap of convention-related security news, The Boston Globe reported that "The biggest sighting of the day by far" was the arrival of a liquefied natural gas tanker into Boston Harbor on Saturday. The Globe described "a heavily fortified blue tanker" cruising through the channel less than a mile from the Fleet Center, while military helicopters patrolled overhead.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Manino has repeatedly warned that the LNG tankers headed to the Distrigas terminal in nearby Everett, MA a threat to the city when they enter the harbor.

ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF EXPRESSION

Brooklyn New York-based artist Sheryl Oring has created an alternative free speech zone. Setting up a small black manual typewriter under a shade tree on a busy sidewalk, Oring invites passersby to compose a postcard message to President George Bush.

In Central Square in Cambridge, MA, as pedestrians and traffic flow by, she listened carefully Sunday afternoon to a student sitting opposite, first aligning two postcards and carbon paper into the polished old-fashioned typewriter. Dressed in a conservative red business suit like an impassive court stenographer, Oring types along as the man expressed his views.

Oring has a visitor sign the stamped original, to be mailed to the White House, and then the copy, which she retains for her "archive of public opinion." This performance piece, entitled "I Wish to Say" began in San Francisco and has been presented in locations across the country. An August New York show is planned for the Republican National Convention.

In contrast to mass media deploying its significant technological resources in Boston, Oring, with her small black manual typewritter, postcards and carbon paper, provides any individual direct experience of personal and cooperative communication.

This free expression zone is at once physically small and imaginatively large. Oring's patient willingness to serve individual citizens as their correspondent in a hand-crafted message contrasts favorably with the one-way channel of electronic media channels.

A large American flag is displayed behind her as she works. After the student was finished an impetuous youngster pushed up to her table and asked "How much does this cost?" "It's free" Oring said, as his eyes widened in disbelief.

For more information: www.iwishtosay.org

BILLIONAIRES FOR BUSH

Billionaires for Bush is a political action committee of corporate lobbyists, profligate heiresses, Halliburton executives, and other winners under George Bush's economic policies.

For more information, visit: www.BillionairesForBush.com

ON MONDAY:
- The California Delegation gathers
- President Clinton speaks.

Random Lengths Convention Coverage

2004-07-25T12:46:00.000-07:00

Random Lengths will be covering the Democratic National Convention with on-the-spot reporsts from Frank O'Brien, one of the Harbor Area's most dedicated public citizens. Senior editor Paul Rosenberg will be editing and posting Frank's reports.

A full-length report will be published in the next issue of Random Lengths, out on August 5.