Reading notes

Rev. John provides yet another example that wise ones show up in the most unexpected places, and hence bears hope to a wisdom-hungry world:

The Republican National Committee admitted recently that it sent mailings to two states implying that “liberals” want to ban the Bible. Demonizing the other side is a popular tactic with political commander-in-chief Karl Rove, who hopes millions of evangelical Christians will form a mighty band of the righteous and show their loyalty to God by re-electing President George W. Bush.

Speaking as a Republican as well as a Christian, I hope my fellow citizens will reject such outrageous falsehoods. I’ve been an ordained Southern Baptist minister for more than fifty years, serving churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama and the District of Columbia. I also served Alabama in the U.S. Congress for sixteen years, but lost my seat in a Republican primary to a member of the “Moral Majority.” My voting record was mostly conservative, but my opponent claimed I wasn’t sufficiently Christian because I favored equal rights for women and minorities, and other such “liberal” causes. …

I do feel profound disrespect for politicians or religious leaders who would take advantage of people of sincere faith for selfish purposes. My leader, Jesus of Nazareth, was exceedingly kind to sinners, but took a whip and drove from the Temple the moneychangers who were making themselves rich by their manipulation and exploitation of the faithful. Those who do the same for political purposes are certainly in the same category. …

As a friend of mine who is an African-American preacher often says, it’s not enough to talk the talk. You have to walk the walk. Jesus said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

So how should a person of faith judge the fruits of this president’s time in office? I feel sure Mr. Rove has his own ideas, but here are a few of mine. …

And then he proceeds to provide some discerning ones.

Thanks, Bro. John.

(Rev. John Buchanan’s op-ed is distributed by MinutemanMedia.org.)

[via LiberalLizard]

Michelle writes about that which makes me saddest in this election:

The throngs of Republicans were pumped after seeing the president and the action hero [Schwarzenegger]. But there was an angry edge to their elation. They shrieked at the dozen or so protesters standing on the concrete plaza outside the auditorium. “Kerry’s a terrorist!” yelled a stocky kid in baggy jeans and braces. “Communists for Kerry! Go back to Russia,” someone else screamed. Many of them took up the chant “Kerry sucks”; old women and teenage boys shouting with equal ferocity. …

Friday’s Republican rally [in Columbus, Ohio] … was evidence that many on the right are as fervid and galvanized as their opponents. Pollster John Zogby has called this the “apocalypse election” because people on both sides believe the world will end if their candidate loses. He’s right — the Republicans I met at the Ohio rally spoke in language almost identical to that of the most addled Bush-hater, although often several steps further removed from reality. …

To me, this disconnect from easily verifiable reality — I see it constantly — is one of the strangest, weirdest, creepiest things I’ve ever witnessed. (I first noted this disconnect phenomenon back in March 2003.)

“President Bush knows you can’t reason with people that are blinded by hate,” Schwarzenegger said. “But let me tell you something: Their hate is no match for our decency, their hate is no match for America’s decency, and it is no match for the leadership and the resolve of George W. Bush.”

I don’t think I’ve ever met a liberal-leaning person that is “blinded by hate.” Blinded by anger at injustice and deception, sometimes, like me. But the underlying truth is it’s a commitment to compassion, justice, mercy, and peace that most often makes people identify as liberal in the first place.

What’s happening, I think, is valid incoming criticism to Mr. Bush & Co. is being misperceived as — or deliberately spun as — hate. It’s rarely hate. It’s often a passionate resolve to excise radical deception from, and restore reasonable discourse to, the body politic.

Outside, though, I didn’t see much American decency among Bush’s followers. The conservative movement has long been fueled by anger and resentment. But here the negativity was at an especially high pitch, perhaps because some were starting to realize they might lose — and that seemed like the end of the world.

Honestly, sometimes I feel as though I’ve stumbled into a parallel universe, about to be confronted by Evil Spock. Or like I’m seeing people trapped in a photonegative world where they’re honestly misperceiving black as white and white as black. Or like A Square trying to explain my 2-D encounter with the 3-D Sphere, only to be met with quizzical looks and vessel-poppin’ jeers.

“Jesus! Jesus!” screamed 26-year-old Joe Robles, pointing to his Bush-Cheney sign. “The man stands for God,” he said of the president. “We want somebody who stands for Jesus. I always vote my Christian morals.” Robles, a student at Ohio State University, told me that Kerry’s daughter is a lesbian. I said I thought that was Dick Cheney’s daughter, but he shook his head no with confidence. …

Five years ago I would have asserted that Joe Robles is a fictional character. No one, I would have told you, could be like that; it’s hyperbole for effect. Unfortunately, since then I’ve met multiple Joe Robles. I would also have asserted back then that I’m an understanding person. But alas, I still don’t quite understand how one can be so sure of things that are demonstrably untrue.

A blond woman dragged her young redheaded son toward the protesters, pointed to them, and said, “These are the Democrats,” speaking as if she was revealing an awful reality that he was finally old enough to face. As she walked away with a group of other mothers and children, she was so angry she could barely speak. A friend consoled her by promising her that Bush would win. After all, she pointed out, “Look how many more Bush supporters there were on the street!”

That calmed the angry blond woman down a little. But she was still mad. “We,” she said, stammering and gesturing contemptuously at the demonstrators, “we are the way it should be!”

No, ma’am, you are not. No, we are not. This is the way it should be:

We must remove the poisoners from power and wash away their poisons, correct our misunderstandings of each other, and commit ourselves to seeing clearly, discussing honestly, and working together no matter what. Only then can we move forward.

We can do this.

[via peeder]

The ever-insightful Ruy Teixeira highlights —

The October 27th analysis by Democracy Corps [that] examines the latest data on the patterns of Bush and Kerry support among both men and women and among both non-college and college voters. …

Then he quotes from the analysis points that focus on “the changing attitudes of college-educated men”:

Where did Bush go wrong with educated men? Clearly the Bush campaign set out to win college educated men with a strategy that emphasized continued tax cuts and Kerry’s “tax and spend” record in the Senate. At the outset, this might have been sufficient: Bush led among white college educated men by 20 points … But as the campaign progressed, Kerry steadily increased his share of the vote –- ultimately by 9 points to 45 percent -– while Bush dropped by 5 points to 51 percent.

Republican strategies, centered on the war and the military, cultural politics and ideology were meant to solidify the base, but it created a series of problems among the educated men. First, college educated men are increasingly skeptical about the situation in Iraq. Second, educated men question Bush’s approach to the economy, which remains sluggish while the deficits explode. Finally, the cultural politics that are so important to shoring up religious voters have no impact with these socially moderate voters. …

Fascinating, and supportive of my thesis that being educated and informed makes voting for Bush eventually untenable. Why? Educated people have drummed into them the discipline of critical thinking — it’s the primary benefit of a college education IMO — while the Bush administration is effectively at war against critical thinking, ridiculing and attacking those who engage in it. Informed people trend away from Bush because his administration’s policies don’t jibe with reported and observed factual reality. As one of the Daily Show writers put it, “the facts themselves have an anti-Bush bias.”

The relationship between educated and informed is that educated people tend to become informed sooner, largely as a result of their learned habit of reading diverse info sources. Info access by reading is a crucial component, as opposed to info access by radio/TV, because the U.S. news media emphasizes entertainment over information and therefore radio/TV by itself rarely qualifies anyone as informed.

Less-educated people can and do become just as informed, but by drawing more from distilled conventional wisdom than from habitual diverse reading, and that distillation of unspun facts into public awareness sometimes takes months or years, so there’s a delay.

Maybe there’s not as much correlation between being educated and being a reader as I think there is, in which case I may be talking out my butt. But however it comes about, the resulting end point — a well-informed voter — tends to be bad news for Mr. Bush.

What I know for certain is that I as a widely-read, white college-educated man fit the study’s findings: having learned what I’ve learned, I would not vote for Mr. Bush under any circumstance. My sense of self-discipline demands that I be as smart, thoughtful, curious, moral, just, and faithful as I can possibly be — integrity, integrity, integrity — and I accept no less from my president.

[via DemFromCT]

As DemFromCT puts it, Kevin makes the case that “motivated young, minority, and disenfranchised voters [are] being motivated like never before.” I predict Kevin’s going to be seen as eerily prescient in the next few days:

I am a 21-year-old African-American/loyal Salon reader/frequent writer to you. … Almost two weeks ago, I sent a letter to you guys telling you how the new Eminem song “Mosh” has many young’ns riled up, angry, motivated and against Bush. … Maybe you guys should listen more to us young’ns, maybe have a young person consultant of sorts. After all, we will decide this election …

First, let me just say prepare for the death of polls, as that will be the dominant story coming out of election night. …

I too am convinced that polling will be a dominant story: existing polling models will be revealed as too broken to continue. I don’t know that polling will die, but it will be extensively rejiggered to account for the astoundingly large variables now being ignored.

Those polls saying how Bush will get 16 to 18 percent of the black vote are just wrong. … Since black people aren’t really polled, here is a bit of insight. Although we aren’t that excited about Kerry, he has nothing to worry about with the African-American community. … Yes, Democrats take us for granted and regardless of which party, we are at the bottom of the totem poll, but we realize that Democrats talk to us, try with us, are down with us, and give us a seat at the table. …

Next, us young’ns. We aren’t as stupid as people think. Simply put, we are in Iraq fighting or we know someone there, we have no health insurance, no jobs, and are generally pro-human rights (not for the gay marriage amendment, PATRIOT Act, etc.). We aren’t going to vote for Bush, period. Kerry will take about 70 percent of the young vote. … On average 30 percent of African-Americans vote. Expect a minimum of 50 percent this time, maybe close to double. That is anywhere between 7 to 9 million more blacks voting. …

Kerry wins nationally in a blowout. Election night is over as central time zone states finish reporting. Why? Because of blacks and young’ns. …

Thanks, Kevin, for the cool insights and hope-fortifying predictions.

[via DemFromCT]

David catalogs the political thuggery going on these days, of which my direct experience so far has been limited to trespass/theft/litter actions against my and my neigbors’ Kerry/Edwards yard signs. It’s impossible for me not to observe that meanwhile almost nothing ever happens to B/C yard signs (in my limited sample it’s 12 K/E signs stolen for every 1 B/C sign).

But there’s much worse happening — attacks on campaign headquarters, intimidation/assault against Kerry supporters/war protesters, police mistreatment of protesters, vandalization of Kerry supporters’ homes/cars, threats to Kerry supporters’ employment — and David has assembled quite a list of links to news reporting on it.

Sure, this reprehensible behavior is happening on both sides, but as David observes,

I am fairly confident, however, that if we were to catalog all of these acts, both big and small, over the past four years, the list on the right side of the aisle would be considerably longer, and considerably nastier, than that on the left. And there’s a reason for that: Unlike the nastiness on the left — which is often reactive — the impetus for that on the right is being encouraged (and in some cases directly fomented) by people in positions of national leadership of the conservative movement.

I myself infer a top-down lawlessness in action, of which Abu Ghraib- and Guantanamo torture is a big example and yard sign theft a small one. I see an embrace of “the ends justify the means” in Republican circles that makes my blood run cold as someone bearing a primarily nurturant-parent worldview. Not so cold, though, as to stop me from being a warrior for justice as needed.

I love Thurber Hamm’s verbal depiction of this transformation of mild-mannered Democrat into a warrior in a comment to David’s entry:

I feel sorry for the first Republican that tries bullying a Democrat this time around. You’re going to see reed thin schoolteachers (who normally spend their free time in yogic meditation) transform into full-on warriors. You had better pay attention to the flame in her eyes when she tells you to BACK OFF because your flag waving fascism isn’t going to stop anyone from [exercising] their right to vote this time.

Indeed.

Thanks, David.

Scientists report in the British medical journal The Lancet many more deaths in Iraq, as published in the Guardian UK and NY Times:

A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war. …

“Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children,” they said. …

This is 100,000 men, women, and children now dead, approximately zero of whom had anything to do with attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001. They are dead as a direct consequence of Mr. Bush choosing to invade Iraq. They would not be dead otherwise; that is the basis of the study. Most are dead not because of anything they did but because they lived in the wrong place at the wrong time, something few if any had much control over. They could as easily be my friends or your friends, my children or your children, my family or your family. They are someone’s friends. They are someone’s children. They are someone’s family.

In what universe is it acceptable that the person responsible for these 100,000 innocent deaths stay in office?

What kind of God thinks killing 100,000 innocents is okay? The one revealed by Jesus in scripture? The Jesus who says —

You’re familiar with the old written law, “Love your friend,” and its unwritten companion, “Hate your enemy.” I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. …

In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.

If we refuse to do what he says, if we instead bomb and kill and defiantly refuse to understand these others, will God not hold accountable those of us supporting these actions? Does he not consider any number of innocent deaths ≥1 too many? Will he not say, “What part of ‘thou shalt not kill’ do you not understand? What part of ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’ do you not understand?”

The article continues:

The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces - with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships. …

The study was funded by the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins University and by the Small Arms Survey in Geneva, Switzerland, a research project based at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

That those who name themselves Christian tolerate such behavior from U.S. leaders, much less embrace it, vote for it, and call it good, is the most ragingly offensive phenomenon I have ever experienced in my life.

Will there ever be forgiveness? From God? From the victims’ families? From me?

[via Tom]