Frederick Clarkson

Whatever Happend to the Religious Left?

2008-07-17T14:35:00.002-04:00

As it happens, life has intervened and I am going to be unable to make it to Netroots Nation. However, Ryan Valentine of the Texas Freedom Network has graciously agreed to stand in, and to read my panel presentation for me. For those of us (including me!) who are unable to be there, it turns out that much of the Netroots Nation agenda will be video taped and live streamed via ustreamtv -- including Whatever Happened to the Religious Left. It will also be archived and available after the convention. I will post further details as they become available.

Here is what I had previously announced over at Talk to Action.

The annual Netroots Nation conference (formerly the Yearly Kos) will be held this year in Austin, Texas, July 17-20th. I'm pleased to announce that Pastordan and I will be leading a panel titled Whatever Happened to the Religious Left?. I will talk about what the Religious Right has got that the Religious Left hasn't got -- and offer a few ideas of how to get it.

There is nothing on the Left corresponding to the politically dynamic Religious Right. But there are some promising elements with the potential to become greater than the sum of their parts.

This panel seeks to address what's going on and what should happen next. We will discuss how common approaches to electoral politics can be found and practiced in a way that respects the unique character of progressive faith.
Whatever Happened to the Religious Left?
Sat, 07/19/2008 - 4:30pm, Ballroom E

Watch this space for a lot more posting and some signficant news related to this subject.

The Courage to be Rwandan

2008-06-22T22:07:00.002-04:00

The Commencement season has rolled around again, and so it is time for my now annual tradition of posting about a commencement address for all seasons; for all schools and for all time.

Commencement addresses are tricky things. Most speakers go in knowing that expectations are at once very low and very high. People would love to hear a remarkable address, but they know they are unlikely to hear one, the best efforts of the speaker not withstanding. But sometimes a commencement speaker rises to the occasion and captivates an audience -- and is remembered -- if for no other reason, than for having done so.

Dr. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International cut-through the summer haze with just such a speech Oberlin College in 2005. His remarks -- not only moved the audience but lit-up the blogophere. A member of the class of 2005 was so moved that he posted the speech on the Daily Kos where it topped the rec list. As one commenter wrote: "All that I can say is that I wish my days were blessed with more words that could leave me feeling like I feel right now after reading that."

Dr. Schulz had been much in the news that week, due to Amnesty's release of a report on human rights abuses and torture of prisoners by the United States at Gitmo and beyond. Amnesty called for an international investigation and the prosecution of any U.S. government officials found responsible.

But Schulz, a 1971 Oberlin graduate was at his alma mater to connect the values of the college to his hopes for the mission of the students as they enter the world beyond. Along the way, he told a story that I will never forget:

"In the midst of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda," Schulz recalled, "a group of machete-wielding militiamen attacked a girl's school in the middle of the night. The teenagers were rousted from their beds about 2:00 AM and forced to line up in the dining hall. They were ordered to separate themselves, Hutu from Tutsi, so that only the Tutsi would die.

But the girls refused.

A second time the commander ordered them to divide up by ethnic group. But still they refused. And finally one of the girls found her voice and, though very frightened, this is what it was reported later that she said:

"We cannot separate ourselves, you see, because we are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi; we are Rwandan" at which point every one of them was slaughtered."

"But what a legacy they leave! 'We are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi. We are Rwandan.' In that simple sentiment that young girl bespoke a graciousness upon which depends the salvation of the world."

Here in the United States we do not face such unspeakable horrors. But we do live in difficult times, with much at stake. For those of us who did not happen to graduate from anything this year, and even for those of us who did, let's adopt Dr. Schulz as our commencement speaker, and as we go forward to face the challenges of our time -- let's have the courage to be Rwandan.

Candidate Patrick: Please Have a Talk with Governor Patrick

2008-03-22T12:59:00.009-04:00

Governor Deval Patrick's ill-considered casino gambling proposal went down to a stunning, better than two to one defeat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The vote was 108-46. Now casino proponents are whining that the governor's bill did not receive a full and fair hearing, even after many months of very public discussion. The simple fact is that the proposal to place three one billion dollar casinos in the state lost on its merits.

I will never understand why Governor Patrick blew so much political capital and public good will in making the three casinos the central feature of his economic plan. Patrick the candidate opposed casinos, knowing full-well the social and economic destruction they leave in their wake. To call his plan regressive, is to generously overstate what casinos are all about. But we have had that debate, and the regressives were routed.

Frank Phillips reported in the Boston Globe:

One of Patrick's most immediate problems is that the casino initiative alienated a good chunk of his political base, particularly the progressive Democratic coalition that was at the core of his landslide election in 2006.

"I am saddened that he has greatly disillusioned his political base," said state Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and early Patrick supporter who voted against the casino plan.

Indeed. Candidate Patrick urged us to a higher standard of discourse. He called on us to become more deeply involved not only in politics but in the process of governance. He called for greater transparency in government and broad civic engagement. He said he would set a higher standard and restore trust in government. But, he delivered none of this in his casino gambling gambit. Instead, he fronted for a disreputable "industry;" using data derived almost soley from gambling interests, and those financed by gambling interests. He developed his plan with none of the transparency or civic engagement we expected from candidate Patrick.

I think Candidate Patrick needs to have a heart-to-heart talk with Governor Patrick. I think they have much to say to each other.

The Text of "A More Pefect Union"

2008-03-18T17:04:00.004-04:00

Much will be said about Obama's historic speech. But never mind all that. It is far better to read or watch the thing itself:

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Why Governor Patrick's Casino Plan is Going Down the Drain

2008-03-15T14:56:00.003-04:00

Leo Maley's op-ed in the Amherst Bulletin spells it out. Maley points out that casinos are generally economically distastrous, and "result in considerable individual and societal harm." Everyone knows that a lot of gamblers become "problem gamblers," a term which does not nearly explain the breadth and depth of the "problems" faced by individuals, their families, communities and society at large. Maley reports, for example, that "Gulfport, Miss., saw a 213 percent increase in suicides (from 24 to 75) in the first two years after casinos opened in the city. Such numbers are replicated elsewhere."

Seems to me that one of the best programs for suicide prevention would be to ensure that casino gambling never takes hold in Massachussetts. Here is an excerpt from Maley's piece:

Money spent in casinos is diverted from other areas of the economy. Area businesses suffer. Looking at data from the state of Illinois, Earl Grinols, author of the most comprehensive book-length study of the economic benefits and costs of casino gambling, found that for every $1,000 in casino revenue, businesses within 10 miles of a casino saw a decline of $367 in merchandise sales. Commercial casinos actually generated net job losses in 42 percent of counties where they were introduced. A study in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that the states "should not expect any long-term growth effects from legalizing casino gambling."

Independently owned restaurants are especially hard hit. Drawing on ample data from regions around the country that have introduced casino gambling, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association estimates that casinos would force the closure of about 200 restaurants in the state.

These macro economic trends can undercut the economic vitality and diversity of an entire region. But the effect on individuals ought to concern us the most. Estimates vary, but it is likely that 40 to 50 percent of gaming machine revenues of a typical casino comes from problem or pathological gamblers.

A comprehensive literature review conducted by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that the rate of problem and pathological gambling addictions double among populations that live within 50 miles of a casino. A recent study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry found that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 65 are at risk of having financial problems because of gambling, and that older gamblers are increasing at the fastest rate.

A Harvard Medical School study shows that 6 percent of the population has trouble with gambling at some point in their lives and 4 percent - 250,000 people in Massachusetts - report that in the past year they have had problems controlling their urge to gamble. Now imagine if that number were doubled.

Ten Questions That May Make Candidates Squirm

2008-02-27T13:59:00.001-05:00

Where do our candidates stand on basic matters of separation of church and state and the constellation of values and issues that intersect this foundational doctrine of our culture and our constitution? First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, has ten well-crafted questions to help us find out.

FFF suggests using them at

Town Hall meetings or other locations where candidates for office will be gathering. You can copy and paste them into an email message to the candidates. Or, use these as suggestions to help formulate your own questions to candidates, to find out their views on safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty.

These are things that can sometimes make candidates squirm; and they are sometimes coached not to talk about them. But avoidance does not mean that people do now want to know the answers or that there are not important philosophical and public policy matters that directly relate. Our candidatees should not only be prepared to answer such questions, but they can be reasonably assured that we would like to hear good answers.

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7) Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8) Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9) Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

What Will Happen If (When) Marriage Equality Comes to California?

2008-02-19T17:32:00.002-05:00

One of the current fashions emanating from Inside the Beltway is the declaration that the "culture war is over," and in the case of E.J. Dionne, that it is the wrong war to be fought. The currency of such proclamations may not last long. They are variations on the old saw that the religious right is dead, dying, over the hill, and so on. There are analyses to be made about the State of the Religious Right, which is certainly in a state of turmoil and transition, in the wake of the passing of the founding generation from public life. But any analysis whose central premise is any of the above, is probably wishful thinking, at best.

The time is not to kid ourselves with wishful thinking, but to be clear about the current nature and capacities of the religious right; staying aware of the direction of the religious right’s issues, organizations and electoral campaigns, and making any necessary adjustments.

Here is an example from today’s news: one of the most divisive issues of the culture war, marriage equality, is now before the California Supreme Court. It’s as high profile a case as they come; and in the largest state in the union; and it may well be decided prior to the November elections. The case will be heard on March 4th.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a helpful article about how religious institutions on both sides have lined up with amicus briefs in this case. This is important as the arguments made by these groups (as well as many others) will inform the battles to come in this area, and may very well serve as helpful briefings for candidates, staff and consultants.

The Chronicle reports:

As the state Supreme Court prepares for a three-hour hearing March 4 on the constitutionality of a state law allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, the justices have been flooded with written arguments from advocates on both sides - including two large contingents of religious organizations with sharply differing views.

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as "the lifeblood of community, society and the state" and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create "deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution."

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

Raoul Kennedy, the attorney for the plaintiffs said, according to the Chronicle:

"... same-sex marriages were recognized by the Christian church in the fifth century, were observed among natives by the first Spanish explorers in the Americas, were common among the Mojave Indians of the Colorado River in southeastern California, and have been documented in more than 230 African tribes.

Besides religious denominations, Kennedy's clients include about 80 churches and temples in California and more than 250 clergy members, some of whom perform same-sex weddings despite the state's refusal to recognize them.

"By sanctioning only marriages between a man and a woman, the state relegates the beliefs and practices of (these) religions, denominations and clergy to second-class status," Kennedy said. He argued that such treatment violates the California Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference," language that state courts have interpreted as separating church and state more strictly than the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Further info on the case can be found on the web site of the California Supreme Court.

All of the amicus briefs can be found here.

It is not clear when the court will rule on the case, however, there is the possibility that the ruling will come before the November election, and of course, then be an animating campaign issue, just as it was when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision on marriage equality in the run-up to the 2004 elections.

So, let’s not be lulled into complacency. The issues that animate the culture wars are alive and well and are not going away, and neither are the active players. The LGTB civil rights movement will continue to go forward, and the reactionary institutions of the religious right and several generations of trained activists will carry on as well. We can also reasonably expect that the Republican Party and its religoius right allies will skillfully exploit the issue (as they have in the past) if it should come up.

I think that the question that we Democrats at all levels need to answer for ourselves is -- will we be ready if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality?

Endin' the Feudin' Between Science and Religion

2008-02-08T15:10:00.000-05:00

The religious right has succeeded in dominating public discourse on the intersection of science and religion for a long time now. Among many other things, seesaw battles have been waged in many states over the teaching of creationism or intelligent design; and faith based "abstinence" programs as against thoughtful, comprehensive sexuality education.

But beyond the courtroom and legislative theatrics, and conflict driven media coverage, mainstream science and religion have been getting organized. Those who posit that religion and science are inherently in conflict are two sides of the same counter productive framing of the argument. Most Americans understand, believe and accept that faith and science are not necessarily in conflict. Those who support religious pluralism and sound science and science education are natural allies against the religious supremacism, Christian nationalism and crackpot science of the religious right.

A few of these efforts include Evolution Sunday, (actually, Evolution Weekend, Feb. 8 - 10 2008) in which hundreds of churches have sermons discussing the compatibility of their faith and evolutionary science; the publication of a book by the National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility of faith and science; and the publication of a groundbreaking theological statement by the United Church of Christ that seeks to end the "feud" between science and religion. The UCC has backed it up with an ad campaign targeted to science blogs.

Much more...

Nix Gambling Addix as Economic QuikFix

2007-12-08T14:33:00.000-05:00

So says the growing chorus of opposition to what I call Governor Deval Patrick's plan to expand gambling addiction in Massachusetts. Although as a candidate he opposed casino gambling, Patrick has made casino gambling the centerpiece of his economic program. This has come as a surprise to those of us who supported him from early on.

The Boston Globe reports that while the governor's support for his own program has been "tepid," a far flung network of opponents from the Massachusetts Council of Churches to the Massachusetts Restaurant Association is mobilizing against it. Restauranteurs are rightfully concerned that massive "resort casinos" will undermine existing businesses:

Over the past several years there has been a well-funded effort to expand gaming in the Commonwealth. Proposals to allow thousands of slot machines at the state's racetracks have been unsuccessful thus far. There are important economic risks that could result from expanding gaming, in addition to the well-documented social costs.

The MRA opposes all efforts to expand gaming and allow slot machines at racetracks.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state's economy and our success is directly correlated to people's discretionary income. The expansion of gaming would divert much of that discretionary income out of the economy,the same income that is presently used for dining out.

* The huge revenues that would be created by slot machines would allow these establishments to attract customers away from our businesses with their free or subsidized food, beverages, and entertainment.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state's economy. We employ over 9% of the Massachusetts workforce and contributed over $591 million in sales tax on meals last year. Expanded gaming would put this very important economic engine at great peril.

* Our industry is currently being challenged by the economy. Today, operators are facing huge increases in the cost of doing business. Some of these factors include healthcare, energy, and the overall vulnerability in the commodities market.

Restaurants are good neighbors and are owned by many people who have invested in their communities. The livelihoods of many are dependent upon the success of these small businesses. To shift the income of a few businesses (racetracks) would be benefiting a few at the expense of many.

Meanwhile, a pro-gambling addiction state legislator plans to stage a procasino hearing featuring... (drum roll please) -- the gambling industry!

The Springfield Republican reports:

BOSTON - Hoping to create some momentum, a pro-casino legislator plans to hold a hearing on Beacon Hill that will emphasize the economic benefits of expanded gambling.

State Rep. David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said he invited representatives of some gambling companies including Harrah's Entertainment of Las Vegas and owners of the state's four horse and dog tracks.

"We had the anti-gaming hearing, the can't-do hearing," said Flynn, co-chairman of the Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets. "This is a can-do hearing."

Oh yeah. And top officials of the Patrick administration will be there too.

JFK, Mitt Romney and "The Speech"

2007-12-04T14:55:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I know. Everyone is writing about it. But here is my take.

Leading Anti-gay Religious Right Activist Moving to Massachusetts

2007-12-04T14:45:00.000-05:00

Laurel writes over at Talk to Action:

Holocaust revisionist and homobigot Scott Lively is moving to Springfield, MA. Lively has been the CA state director for Don Wildmon's American Family Association.

Most recently, Lively co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, a quasi-religious anti-gay hate group which calls homosexuality "inherently evil". His collaborators include Alexey Ledyaev and Ken Hutcherson. Alexey Ledyaev is the leader of the Latvia-based international New Generation church. New Generation's flagship location in the USA is Springfield, MA, to which Lively plans to move. Hutcherson is founder of Antioch Bible Church, another anti-gay enterprise located near Seattle, WA.

Lively, Hutcherson and Ledyaev spend a good deal of time traveling around the former Soviet Union and the US spreading the anti-gay message of hate.

Rudy Giuliani's Casino Gambling Sugar Daddy

2007-11-18T21:58:00.000-05:00

The Daily News reports:

Rudy Giuliani is jetting around the country wooing Bible-thumping conservatives, but his plane is often provided by a king of Sin City.

The Republican presidential hopeful anted up more than $122,000 last summer alone for jets traceable to casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson, whose Las Vegas Sands empire has made him the third-richest American, a Daily News review of campaign records shows.

Last quarter, The Sands' innocuously named Interface Operations LLC was the top provider of corporate jets to the frequently flying Giuliani, who was whisked around the country on the casino's plush Gulfstream G-IV in late August and early September, records show.

"You have to follow the money and ask, 'Why is Sheldon Adelson partnering with Rudy Giuliani?'" asked Stacey Cargill, an anti-gambling and Republican Party activist in Iowa, where the nation's first presidential caucus is set for Jan. 3.

Cargill, who views even legal gambling as a magnet for crime and vice, said, "If Rudy Giuliani wants to be the crimefighting candidate, why is he partnering with a large and growing gambling empire?"

But airplane rides around the country are not the only thing Giuliani has recieved from the casino kingpin:

Last month, Adelson... held a Giuliani fund-raiser at his Venetian casino in Las Vegas.

High-rollers who agreed to raise $25,000 for Giuliani's presidential bid got a special treat - cigars with the former mayor.

Catholic Bishops Too "Cash Strapped" to do a Mailing

2007-11-16T23:15:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops is too poor, according to The Boston Globe, to send to its local parishes, its traditional instructional mailing on how to approach politics and public policy. The Globe did not explain why the Bishops are broke and buried the point in the last paragraph of the story -- but we can guess that it probably has something to do with the massive payouts the church has made to settle lawsuits related to the priest pedophilia scandal.

Traditionally, the document has been mailed to all parishes in the United States; this year, to save money, the cash-strapped bishops' conference will e-mail the document to parishes and post it on a website.

However, the Globe headlined the story, O'Malley draws line with Democrats: Backing abortion rights candidates 'borders on scandal'.

The Globe reported:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

The Globe continued:

O'Malley's predecessors as archbishop of Boston were also staunchly antiabortion. Cardinal Bernard F. Law called a news conference to criticize a Republican governor, William F. Weld, for his support for abortion rights, and Law had the lieutenant governor at the time, Paul Cellucci, also a Republican, disinvited from a Catholic high school for the same reason; Law also blasted Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, for her support of abortion rights. Law's predecessor, Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros, in 1980 tried unsuccessfully to persuade Catholics to vote against two Democratic congressional candidates, Barney Frank and Jim Shannon, because of their support for abortion rights.

Interesting, but I don't recall -- and the Globe does not mention -- any Catholic official ever having blasted any Massachusetts Republicans in recent years for their positions on abortion -- suchas the formerly prochoice Gov. Mitt Romney or continuously prochoice Lt. Gov and later gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey -- although I suppose I could have missed something.

It is interesting too, to see the Cardinal attack the Democratic Party as a whole, as if it had a lot of say, or should have a lot of say over who the membership picks as its candidates, and who the voters ultimately choose as its representatives.

[See the expanded version of this post at Talk to Action.]

The Massachusetts Primary

2007-11-10T23:01:00.000-05:00

As now seems likely, Massachusetts may reschedule its primaries from March to February 5th. The Boston Globe reports:

"February 5 has become a de facto national primary day," [Secretary of State William] Galvin said. "This gives Massachusetts voters the first chance in years to participate in some significant way in the selection process for nominees in both parties."

Most analysts agree that the results of Feb. 5 primaries could well mark the end of the presidential nominating races in both parties. There will be as many as 21 primaries that day, including votes in delegate-rich states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California... The new date for a Massachusetts primary could create a political problem for Mitt Romney. The former governor, who is not as popular among Bay State Republicans as he once was, may be forced to compete here in an effort to avoid an embarrassing loss in his home state.

Indeed. The Republicans have a winner take all primary, and Romney is not nearly as popular among Bay State Republicans as outsiders might think.

On the Democractic side, my raw speculation would be that this gives an advantage to Obama since Governor Patrick is mobilizing supporters on Obama's behalf and no one else seems to have much of a presence in the state, having assumed that the primary, if it mattered at all, would be in March.

At the same time, Galvin says that one of the reasons for doing this is to simultaneously schedule five party primaries for vacant state legislative seats. And there is at least one blogger running. Lori Erlich is running in the Dem primary for State Rep from Marblehead. She is a environental activist, a CPA and based on the profile of the field in The Marblehead Reporter, she sounds like the progressive choice -- and of course, being a fellow blogger gets her a mention here.

Ex-Hooker Tells All About the Senator Who Campaigned Against "Massachusetts Values"

2007-11-10T14:28:00.000-05:00

The current issue of Hustler magazine has an interview with the woman who says she was Republican Sen. David Vitter's hooker -- as well as a "naked pictorial" -- according to The Advocate newspaper of Baton Rouge.

But first, let's underscore that the man who campaigned against "Massachusetts values" has made his career grandstanding on the sanctity of marriage -- apparently while breaking laws as well as his marriage vows. Here is what he had to say when running for the U.S. Senate:

Vitter Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage

We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage... stated David Vitter.

Much more.

More MA Casino News

2007-11-08T14:43:00.000-05:00

Is the governor's proposal to expand gambling addiction in the state in trouble? The evidence suggests so.

The Massachusetts Council of Churches has a footnoted list of Economic Arguments Against Casino Gambling. Here is one compelling point that we won't hear the Governor's spokespersons even try to rebut:

Gambling addiction to slot machines is all about speed…the faster you play, the more likely you will play out-of-control and be more reckless with your money as you lose it in the machine. Today’s slots are meticulously designed computers, generating precise profits, deliberately creating a false sense of "near wins" and regular small payoffs that create an illusion of sporting chance. They are the most addictive form of gambling ever devised.[7]

Anyone comforted by the idea that casino gambling is voluntary should spend a day with the casino staffs that target people based on how fast they play a slot machine and track prospects' and players' observed worth, define their predicted value, and systematically maximize individual "share of wallet" through targeted and customized promotional messages, limited-time cash offers, and carefully tracked time-to-response and spending analysis. This predatory marketing explains why for people who live within 50 miles of a casino, at least 1 out of every 20 people becomes a gambling addict.[8] But while these problem gamblers are very lucrative for the industry, their addiction leads to crime, distressed families, suicide and bankruptcy.[9] Non-gamblers are left paying the tab for these costs through higher taxes.

And the new statewide coalition, Casino Free Mass, has a useful set of talking points.

Reporters Please Take Note

2007-11-08T14:02:00.000-05:00

Is the Catholic League of Massachusetts a Sham? The evidence suggests so.

Play the FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes!

2007-11-01T21:09:00.000-04:00

Just one question: Who said this?

"Taxing the poor through casinos is cynical and cowardly"

A: The Massachusetts Council of Churches

B: The Amherst Democratic Town Committee

C: The Boston Business Journal

D: Some Lefty Blogger (like me.)

Correct answer at the bottom of this post!

If you guessed the correct answer -- you are the winner in the FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes! And unlike Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling proposal, what you get is nothing but satisfaction. The FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes has no history of causing addictive behaviors; bankrupsies; divorses -- and has no known ties to organized crime!

The Boston Business Journal argues that we should all be responsible for fixing our roads and bridges rather than trying to scam the poor and the vulnerable. But beyond the social costs, the Journal also thinks it's bad business -- and bad for business.

As a matter of economic policy, expanded gambling is a non-starter. The commonwealth stands to skim $600 million off the top in licensing fees, one-time revenue that quickly becomes lost when it gets absorbed into $26.8 billion budget. Then it expects $400 million per year in additional tax revenue. But has anyone counted the taxes it won't take in when $1.5 billion -- the amount gamblers will need to spend in the state annually to raise the tax expected tax revenues -- is sucked out of the local economy?

One of the fundamental fallacies of the casino revenue scheme is that casinos generate new money that falls out of the sky. No, most of this money simply won't be spent elsewhere in Massachusetts. Perhaps $500 million will be redirected from Connecticut casinos. The rest is money Massachusetts residents will plunk into the pockets of casino operators and won't spend on other things: meals, clothes, vacations, toys. Lawmakers should ask for a reasonable estimate of what the impact of squeezing more from Massachusetts gamblers will have on the income and sales tax figures.

The correct answer is "C".

Gov. Patrick's Casino Proposal: Slo-Mo Road Kill

2007-10-30T16:30:00.000-04:00

As I wrote the other day, the opposition to Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling gambit -- is gathering steam. Those who enjoy political spectacles -- particularly those among the Patrick's political opponents -- will be breaking out the popcorn to watch this classic case of slo-mo road kill. As a fan of the guv, that is a show I would rather see cancelled after these first few disastrous episodes. My friendly advice from this distance is that the sooner he starts shopping plan B to address the state's economic issues -- the better off we all will be.

A statewide coalition, Casino Free Mass, was formally launched on Monday in Boston, and is organizing statewide.

Supporters of the Casino Free Mass coalition include: The National Association on Mental Illness, Massachusetts Chapter; the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts; the National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts Chapter; the Massachusetts Catholic Conference; the Massachusetts Council of Churches; the Massachusetts Family Institute; the Interchurch Council of Greater New Bedford; the Muslim American Society, Boston Chapter; Casinofacts.org

Press coverage has been intensive all over New England. The announcement of the coalition was, for example, the headline frontpage story in the Springfield Republican newspaper.

BOSTON - Religious groups, political activists and human service workers yesterday launched a statewide effort to oppose casinos in Massachusetts.

Members of the Casino Free Mass coalition said they will hold meetings around the state to organize people against casinos. They said they have no plans to lobby legislators.

Members said casinos in Massachusetts will create a new generation of addicted gamblers. They warned that casinos take money from the poor and elderly, those who can least afford it.

The Rev. John V. Johnson, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, said casino gambling is a moral issue. The council is helping lead the coalition.

"Raising revenue off the addiction of its citizens is both a bad bet and bad government," Johnson said at a press conference outside the Statehouse.

The Berkshire Eagle was one of many media outlets in MA and around the country to run the State House News Service or the AP wire stories.

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts first voiced its opposition to casino gambling in 1982, said Diane Jeffery, president of the league. The league opposes casinos because casino jobs are short term, such as construction jobs, or low paying. In addition, casinos sprout crime, gambling addiction and traffic, according to studies conducted by the league.

"At a time when cities and towns are looking for money, this is not the time to bring in gambling," said Jeffery, in an interview. "We need to focus on industries that don't drain the economy."

The Massachusetts Council of Churches has anti-gambling resources posted on its web site -- including economic arguments against casino gambling.

The National Gambling Impact Study, created and funded by Congress, found that the rate of problem and addicted gamblers doubles within a 50-mile radius of a new casino.

State sponsored revenue-by-addiction is a non-starter. Give it up now please, Governor Patrick.

Massachusetts: A Stronghold, Not an Oasis

2007-10-29T20:07:00.000-04:00

Massachusetts is routinely taken for granted in American politics. We are an early primary state -- but not early enough apparently. But there is more. This taking for granted is particuarly acute in the progressive and Democratic political communities -- including the national political blogger community,, which finds itself fascinated, just fascinated by obscure precincts in Montana or who said what to whom in the halls of Congress and even on Fox News -- you know the network True Dems are not supposed to appear on... there is more, but I digress.

Let us now celebrate Massachusetts -- one of, if not THE bluest state in the nation.

Let us celebrate our all-Dem Congressional delegation and Senators Kennedy and Kerry. (Aren't we glad Senator Kennedy is back at work after a hospital stay?)

Let us celebrate a progressive Democratic electorate who had the vision, the wisdom and the energy to get Deval Patrick the nomination for governor over overwhelmingly better funded and more established candidates.

Let us celebrate the good sense -- and the enthusiasm -- of the wider electorate who rejected yet another GOP hack in favor of a pragmatic statesman who also happens to be the first African American governor of Massachusetts and only the second African American governor --after Doug Wilder in VA. And let us celebtrate that -- Inside the Beltway conventional wisdom be damned -- among the ways that Patrick distinguished himself as a candidate was to be articulately and unapologetically prochoice and promarriage equality and pro- stem cell research.

Indeed, let us celebrate the simple fact that Massachusetts has led the way in the instituting of marriage equality, thanks to the wisdom of our Supreme Judicial Court. In the several years since the legalization of gay marriage, nothing untoward has happened, the dire and histrionic warnings of the religious right and the Catholic bishops not withstanding. Come visit us and you'll see that nothing has changed, except that some people are happier and more secure in their lives. More recently, our state legislature blocked a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to overturn the court decision. The initiative would have been on the ballot in '08 and served as a further distraction from the real issues facing our state and the nation. We reject hate-based politics and refuse to put bigotry on the ballot, let alone in the state constitution.

The religious right is going to try to target the courageous state representatives and senators who took a chance and did the right thing. But we will not forget them and leave them vulnerable -- and we are already blogging and organizing fundraisers.

I am proud to report that the Massachusetts state senate has passed a bill that would establish a 35 foot buffer zone between clinics and religious right zealots who routinely harrrass people going in and out. The Boston Globe reports:

During a press conference... [Senator Harriette] Chandler, Senator Susan Fargo, a cosponsor, and advocates from Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts stood next to large photographs of a protester dressed as a Boston police officer talking to a driver entering a healthcare facility.

"This is the level of protesting that is going at reproductive health centers in Massachusetts," said Angus McQuilken of Planned Parenthood. "This is the type of protesting that this law is designed to prevent." ...

Expansion of the buffer zone has the support of House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and nearly half of the 160 state representatives, said Representative Carl Sciortino, a cosponsor. Attorney General Martha Coakley testified in support of the bill at a hearing in May.

Governor Deval Patrick released a statement of support.

"Women in the Commonwealth have the right to medical care free of violence, harassment, or intimidation," Patrick said. "The Senate's decision today to widen the buffer zone around reproductive clinics will protect patients from the abuse that so many have encountered as they seek care."

"We're not talking here about denying people the right to have freedom of speech," Chandler said. "What we're talking about is allowing people to access healthcare."

Let me just say that this stands in sharp contrast to other states that turn a blind-eye to the harrassment of patients and staff of clinics that provide abortion care, among other womens health services. If you want to see what Democratic values in action look like -- take a look at Massachusetts. My state is not an oasis to which progressives can look longingly -- it is a stronghold -- and we are intent on making it stronger.

And presidential campaigns -- I am talking to you. You come to our state looking for volunteers for your New Hampshire operations. We are glad to help. But I also hope that you will look to our state as the epitome of what the Democratic Party stands for and the kinds of approaches to politics and public policy it can bring.

For the first time in the better part of a generation, we have a Democratic governor and legislature that is not only overwhelmingling Dem, but is also far more progressive than it was just a few years ago. They are all still finding their sea legs, but I can't wait to see what they can do once they learn the ropes.

In the media it seems like all we hear about are how white evangelicals are disgusted with Bush and the GOP -- well, who isn't? But let us recall who we are as Democrats. We welcome those white evangelicals who are not already with us -- after all, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are white evangelicals. But let's also not forget who we are, and never allow those who make a buck off of selling us new ways to appeal to hypothetical microdemographics dominate the conversation at the cost of our most deeply held values as Democrats.

As my colleague Chip Berlet recently wrote:

"Human rights are not political commodities."

The problem is not "abortion" or “reducing the number of abortions." The problem is unwanted pregnancies, how to prevent them, and how to support women who get pregnant in the decisions they deem appropriate. This includes access to legal and safe contraception and abortion; as well as access to health care and child care for women who choose to give birth and raise children—concepts seen as fundamental rights in other industrialized countries. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors who are women, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

The problem is not "gay rights" or "gay marriage." The problem is building a society where the basic human rights of all people are respected and defended. Under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as "Special Rights." When some Christian conservatives claim that gay people want "Special Rights," it is a falsehood. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors in LGBTQ communities, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

We intend to vote in the upcoming elections in 2008, and we intend to vote for candidates who make it crystal clear that they support basic human rights for all. At the same time, we will continue to build broad and diverse coalitions seeking fundamental progressive social change. As we rebuild our progressive social movement, we will pay special attention to politicians who have through words or actions objectively undermined basic human rights for women, the LGBTQ communities, or any other group in our society.

Oh yeah, and Chip is from Massachusetts too.

Opposition to Gov. Patrick's Casino Proposal Grows

2007-10-27T16:19:00.000-04:00

A statewide coalition led by Casinofacts.org is going public:

On Monday 10/29, there will be an announcement about the formation of a state-wide coalition to oppose Governor Patrick's casino plan. This event will take place at 11am on the front steps of the Statehouse.

The coalition is a combination of religious groups, mental health organizations, business groups, social service agencies and citizen activist groups. They will be coming together under one banner to oppose the Governor's plan to put casinos in three communities in Massachusetts. This is the start of the first organized opposition to this flawed "economic model".

Casinofacts.org has put together strong arguments on the gambling industry and has posted links to solid research on its web site.

dkennedy has more in a post over at Blue Mass Group.

Disagreeing with Deval on Casinos

2007-10-26T23:49:00.000-04:00

I was a supporter of Governor Deval Patrick when he was best known as "Deval Who?" I actively supported his campaign in the blogosphere, and inside Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) (one of his first significant endorsements) and took a lot of skepticism about the viability of his candidacy.

But I also knew that Patrick was right when he told us that there would be times when we would disagree. So naturally he will understand that many of us who so vigorously supported his candidacy are vociferously opposed to his proposal for a multibillion dollar distortion of the Massachusetts economy in the form of three casino gambling "resorts".

I remember being very impressed when then-candidate Patrick offered articulate and principled opposition to casino gambling in light of the profound social harms he knew were associated with the euphemistically termed "gaming industry." Now, in the interest of generating revenue for the state, he is backing a proposal for state sponsorship of the very social harms of which he warned in the form of three state licensed casinos. Yes, his proposal calls for state issued band aids. But the planning for band aids only confirms that he appreciates the harm his casino proposal will cause.

Patrick got it right when he argued during the campaign that rather than debating whether we should raise or lower taxes, we should first consider what we want to do and then discuss how to pay for it. In that spirit those of us who were with him from the beginning are saying that it is time to talk.

Listen to the words the Amherst Democratic Town Committee -- the party leaders in a town that supported Patrick more strongly than any other in the Commonwealth in the hotly contested Democratic primary, and again in the general election:

Amherst Democratic Town Committee

October 18, 2007

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party commits the party to "tax equity and responsible budgeting," "special support for small businesses and agriculture," "sustainable development practices to foster economic stability for both urban and rural cities and towns," and the provision of "a sustainable revenue source to finance state government that support a healthy economy;"

WHEREAS casino gambling would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts;

WHEREAS the Governor's proposal for casinos in Massachusetts represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system; and

WHEREAS the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Ellen Story have been consistent and forthright in their advocacy for more equitable taxation and their opposition to casino gambling;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Amherst Democratic Town Committee supports the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts and in their commitment to a more equitable system of taxation for residents of the Commonwealth.

Motion made by Leo Maley.

Motion seconded by Diana Stein.

Motion, as amended, passed by a vote of 13 to 2 with 0 abstentions.

# # #

Here is the press release that is being vigorously emailed around the state:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Meeting on October 18, 2007, members of the Amherst Democratic Town Committee (ADTC) voted to support the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and local State Representative Ellen Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts.

The ADTC resolution states that Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling proposal "would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts."

The resolution also stated that the Governor's casino proposal "represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system" in Massachusetts.

ADTC member Leo Maley brought the resolution to the Committee. Following an hour-long discussion, the resolution passed by a vote of 13 to 2.

"It was a lively and informative discussion. Committee members came to the meeting well-informed on the subject. Most members had read the very informative materials prepared by the League of Women Voters Massachusetts concerning the economic and social effects of casino gambling," Maley noted.

"It is great to see this level of knowledge and passion concerning such an important issue at the grass roots of the Democratic party."

"Many Committee members expressed their disappointment in Governor Patrick," Maley noted. "Only one Committee member expressed support for Governor Deval Patrick's casino proposal. Most Committee members were passionately opposed to the Governor's plan," Maley noted.

Maley, a community and political organizer, notes that he strongly supported Deval Patrick in last year's Democratic primary and general elections and that many ADTC members had campaigned hard for Patrick.

"Amherst voted 84 percent for Deval Patrick in a three-way Democratic primary and again by 84 percent in the general election," Maley noted. "ADTC members helped lead the effort for Deval Patrick in Western Massachusetts."

Maley noted that "The Governor has done many wonderful things since he's been in office. I continue to support him. However, it is unfortunate to see the Governor so out of step with his core supporters on this very important issue."

Maley can be reached for comment by phone at 413-262-0630 or by email at leomaley3@hotmail.com

Write Angles Conference 2007

2007-10-24T17:58:00.000-04:00

I'll be speaking at Write Angles this year:

Join us for one of New England's longest-running writers' conferences on Saturday, December 1, 2007, at the Willits-Hallowell Conference Center at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, MA. This year's theme is "New Angles on Writing." Over 20 experienced authors, editors, journalists, and agents will present panel discussions and workshops aimed at seasoned writers and novices alike. Best selling author Dennis Lehane and National Book Award winner Julia Glass will make keynote presentations. Conference fee includes continental breakfast and a bountiful buffet luncheon. Preregistration is advised as space is limited.

(Plenty of free parking is available in front of, or near, the Conference Center. Also, the facilities are wheelchair accessible.)

Lake of Fire in Massachusetts

2007-10-22T23:58:00.000-04:00

Lake of Fire is coming to the Brattle Theater in Cambridge for an exclusive engagement October 26th - November 2nd.

I have blogged about this 2 1/2 hour Hollywood documentary on the politics of abortion a number of times since it first appeared at the Toronto Film festival last year. More recently, I have summarized the strong and interesting reviews the film is gaining, mainly in mainstream newspapers.

What I have found most interesting is the film's treatment of antiabortion militance and violence in the U.S. -- which has been such an intergral element rather than an exception to, the antiabortion movement and the wider religious right. Awhile back I wrote:

The film spends a lot of time on an underdiscussed subject: violence against abortion providers. Interviewees include Emily Lyons, an Alabama nurse who was severely injured by a pipe bomb exploded at a clinic by Eric Rudolph, who was on the FBIs Most Wanted List for years in connection with the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as two clinics and a gay bar. Also interviewed is Paul Hill, who publicly advocated the notion that the murder of abortion providers is "justifiable homicide." Hill went on to murder a doctor and an escort himself, and was executed in Florida for his crimes. The loose-but-nevertheless-criminal-and-theocratic revolutionary-underground-network is rarely discussed anywhere, let alone in such a remarkable and prominent vehicle as this.

Operation Rescue had a slogan -- "If abortion is murder, then act like it's murder." That many people don't "act like is murder" underscores the moral complexity of the matter. That there are those who do, and who are tacitly supported by many others, underscores the revolutionary quality of such thinking.

But many mainstream newspaper accounts reduce discussion of the film to matter of the morality of abortion over the wider political and indeed, criminal and terrorist dimensions of the story. The latest such discussion is in The Guardian newspaper of London.

Tony Kaye, who made his name as a award-winning director of commercial and music videos, has spent 16 years and devoted $7m (£3.4m) of his own money to produce what he hopes will be the definitive documentary on the American abortion debate. The film, which has opened in New York and is set for release across 23 US cities, has divided critics, with some hailing it as the documentary of the year, others denouncing it as sensationalist. Detractors have also pointed out that most of the talking heads who appear on camera are male, including Noam Chomsky and the lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

(And me.) The Guardian continues:

Kaye began shooting Lake of Fire in 1992 as a way, he says, of exploring his own deep moral uncertainties about abortion. His personal opinions, he told the Guardian, are as polarised as those of the American public. "If I had to tick a box I would say I was pro-choice. I would vote for a woman's right to chose without hesitation, because without legal abortions poor women die." But emotionally, he says, he is "completely opposed to abortion. I see it as murder - the taking of another's life."

The result of his own internal conflict is a documentary that is, in the conclusion of Cineaste magazine, "a maddeningly elusive film". Shot in arty black and white, it has sequences that will dismay pro-choice feminists and pro-life fundamentalists in equal measure.

The most shocking section of the 152-minute film is footage shot by Kaye himself of the abortion of a 20-week foetus. It shows the foetus's head and eye staring straight at the camera, its hand in a metal collecting tray and its foot placed on a ruler and measuring just over 3cm.

The foetal parts are checked by a doctor to ensure the operation has been completed while he explains why he has conducted the operation: "The really important thing is that we have been able to help this young lady to get on with her life by facilitating her decision not to be a mother at this time."

Kaye told the Guardian that he wholly agreed with those sentiments. "But the irony of that moment is that you are seeing a snuff movie - they have chopped up a human being, a baby."

The footage, which Kaye describes as "probably the most controversial shot ever shown in cinemas", has raised accusations that the documentary is slanted against abortion. But other graphic images, including a picture of a woman slumped in the corner of a hotel room where she had died trying to abort her own foetus with a coat hanger, will prove no less shocking to pro-life supporters.

Indeed.

But because the film defies existing, contradictory narratives about abortion -- it may very well be ignored by the political community. So far, there have been few commentaries on the film from the opposing camps. Most of the writing about the film has come from professional film reviewers.
Still, the film may yet filter into the broader public discussion of the politics of abortion and affect it in surprising and unexpected ways. But I believe it will take a lot more people to actually see and start discussing the film for that to happen.

Religious Right Targets MA State Legislator over Vote on Marriage Equality

2007-10-06T17:50:00.000-04:00

A local political drama in Springfield, Massachusetts is the beginning of what may signal the launch of a national religious right campaign against promarriage equality legislators in Blue states.

Yesterday, a billboard went up on I-91 near the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield -- comparing Democratic state Rep. Angelo Puppolo to Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold.

At issue is Rep. Puppolo's vote last June not to allow a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage to appear on the ballot in 2008. Titled "BETRAYED" the billboard has a vibrant yellow background and features illustrations - one depecting Jesus being betrayed by Judas, one of Benedict Arnold -- and a photo of Angelo Puppolo.

"Tactics like this reinforce my belief that I did the right thing," Puppolo told The Springfield Republican. "I voted to keep discrimination off the ballot and out of the Massachusetts constitution."

Much more.

What Happened at the Sessions on the Religious Right at the Yearly Kos

2007-09-25T23:40:00.000-04:00

Over at Talk to Action, Ann Rose reports on the two sessions on the religious right I organized with Chip Berlet and Susan Thistlethwaite:

There are several reasons why these sessions were significant. One is that serious discussions about the religious right are rare at big political conferences. Another is that when they do take place, they are usually marked by some good information and analysis and scary stories, but what to do is often crammed into off the cuff remarks in the Q&A or appeals to support the organization of the speaker. What was done at YearlyKos was to have a first panel discussing the dynamics of the religious right, and then a second one focused solely on what to do about the religious right. To my knowledge, that has never been done before.

Much more (with pics!).

Theocrat of the Week

2007-09-24T02:51:00.000-04:00

When Our Distinguished Panel of Judges convened to consider several weeks' worth of worthy candidates for Theocrat of the Week -- they were most impressed by a recent covert theocratic act by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

Readers may recall that Vitter has been previously recognized by Our Distinguished Panel of Judges for having overcome tremendous obstacles to theocratic action when he returned to the Senate to conduct theocratic business as usual -- even after having been exposed as a consumer of the services of Bourbon Street prostitutes.

The personal moral code of a theocratic polititian need not be consistent with his public policy goals. His theocratic backers can forgive him his sins -- as long as he continues to work, as he has, to form a more theocratic union.

Our Distinguished Panel of Judges believes that Senator Vitter merits his co-Theocrat of the Week award for having overcome (so far) the extraordinary humiliation of exposure of his double life -- to return to the Senate and continue with theocratic business as usual.

Our Distinguished Panel of Judges takes great satisfaction in seeing that their confidence in Sen. Vitter was not misplaced. Indeed, even though he lacks a theocratic majority in the Senate, he remains undeterred.

The theocratic act that caught the attention of Our Distinguished Panel of Judges appeared right on the front page of the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.

The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."

The earmark appears to be the latest salvo in a decades-long battle over science education in Louisiana, in which some Christian groups have opposed the teaching of evolution and, more recently, have pushed to have it prominently labeled as a theory with other alternatives presented. Educators and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious teachings into the classroom.

The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine intervention in the creation of the universe.

The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry.

The article does not, however, give credit where credit is due, in that the Louisiana Family Forum is the state affiliate of Focus on the Family.

There is also some interesting history there, on which Our Distinguished Panel of Judges wishes not to dwell.

Much more.

Rev. Moon's Worcester, MA-based handgun manufacturing company is part of a world-wide web of intrigue

2007-09-18T03:40:00.000-04:00

The October issue of Portfolio Magazine has a detailed story about the Worcester, MA-based gun manufacturing empire of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Kahr Arms is more than just the manufacturer of some of the smallest and most lethal weapons on earth (including the tommy gun, made famous by Al Capone). It is run and mostly owned by a son of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the billionaire and self-proclaimed messiah who founded the Unification Church and controls a sprawl of businesses presumably intended to sustain and defend his followers when the world as we know it ends. The gun business, along with food companies, real estate, and other holdings, will serve to protect the fortress and keep sinners at bay, according to former members, as well as supply necessary provisions after the arrival of the new world order.

Not much is known about Moon's 37-year-old son, Justin, or how Kahr Arms fits into the church's teachings and the reverend's plans for world domination. People who know Justin say he travels a lot, has a penchant for fast cars and big-caliber pistols, and spends stretches of time at various family and church mansions around the globe. He is also vigorously business-minded and has personally designed most of his company's guns. He has grown Kahr Arms into one of America's top privately owned handgun manufacturers, with sales of around $20 million a year and climbing at an annual rate of 30 percent.

Kahr's success could influence the future of the church itself. With the True Father, as followers call Reverend Moon, slowing down, speculation about his heir has begun to emerge. Church watchers say the fact that Justin has built a company from the ground up makes him a front-runner in any possible succession race to lead the Moonies and run a church business empire valued in the billions of dollars.

Liberal Bloggers are Nazis and Terrorists, Don'tcha Know?

2007-09-12T16:59:00.000-04:00

This item is about the viability of this site and others in the progressive blogosphere. The progressive, reform oriented blogosphere has emerged as a signficant new force in American public life. Naturally, a variety of established interests don't like it, or are having had a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Some lash out. Some do it all the time. While my group blog site Talk to Action has been the target of some sliming, we are also affected by the wider culture of snarling political bomb throwers and debased journalism.

Media Matters for America has detailed coverage of the Bill O'Reilly's despicable comparisons of The Daily Kos to Nazis, David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, and more. (See too, my Bill O'Reilly Hate Tour.)

Jeffrey Feldman of Frameshop today urges us to contact the Wall Street Journal about yet another, more sophisticated smear job against the progressive blogosphere.

In the wake of the newest Bin Laden video, right-wing journalists have spread the disgusting lie that murdering terrorists--who killed thousand of Americans on 9/1--talk, write and think "like" progressive bloggers. The smear tactic is never to come right out and say that bloggers are terrorists, but to smile and say that Osama Bin Laden "sounds just like" an "angry blogger."

The result? The words terrorist, Bin Laden and blogger become mixed up in the media chatter. This smear tactic is not just slanderous--it is outright barbarous. But now--even as right-wing journalists continue to push this word association tactic--the WSJ has taken it one step further: adding the words "Hitler" and "Nazism" to the mix to sully bloggers by associated as well. It is a disgusting tactic--shameful enough to merit the Wall Street Journal being stripped of whatever professional credentials it has. And what makes it even worse: this tactic of saying "Hitler" and "blogger" in the same breath was launched on the eve of the Jewish New Year.

The culprits who launched this utterly offensive effort: James Taranto and Kelsey Hubbard of the Wall Street Journal. The smear happened in a video on the Wall Street Journal opinion website. This transcript captures the attempt by Taranto to smear bloggers by associating them with the words "Hitler" and "Nazism":

Back in the 1930's a young liberal journalist named Allan Cranston published a translation in English of Mein Kampf, Hitler's manifesto, because he wanted to alert people to the dangers of Nazism. These days when America's enemies speak, young liberal journalists cover their ears and go "la la la la la," they don't want to hear it. Why don't they want to hear it? Well, you look at this bin Laden tape which was transcribed and put up on the web, and he sounds like a blogger for the DailyKos. He sounds like a typical angry left American.

These comments by Taranto to Hubbard are offensive to every American, but particularly to those Americans preparing to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah. What does Hitler and Nazism have to do with bloggers? Absolutely nothing. The only reason Taranto mentioned them was to follow the tactic of smear by word association.

Read Feldman's full post and get the contact info the the WSJ.

Gov. Patrick Pisses Off Abstinence Ed-Only Crowd

2007-09-07T04:10:00.000-04:00

Some months ago Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts joined a growing chorus of state governments in refusing federal funds for abstinence education; a program which had been proved ineffective by the Bush administration's own data. Now the National Abstinence Education Association, a coalition of religious right abstinence education advocates is, according to the Associated Press, "targeting" Governor Patrick with a $75,000 negative ad campaign to try to get him to change his mind.

This has come as a disappointment to the group that then-Governor Mitt Romney gave most of the federal grant money to.

A major -- perhaps the major -- beneficiary of the $700,000 federal abstinence grant was Healthy Futures, a project of A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston-area antiabortion crisis pregancy centers whose medical director Eric Keroak was appointed by President Bush to administer federal domestic family planning programs.

Turned out Keroack was a crackpot.

Much more.

Book Bannings and Burnings in America

2007-09-06T14:03:00.001-04:00

Yes, book burnings sometimes happen in America. Far more often, there are efforts to ban books from school and public libraries by various groups trying to suppress access to ideas of which they do not approve -- from Harry Potter to Huckleberry Finn.

Many of those responsible for efforts to ban books from schools and libraries are groups and individuals affiliated with the religious right, particularly in recent years as the American Family Association, among others, have whipped up-fears about Harry Potter books and films.

Fortunately, for more than 25 years, the American Library Association and the American Booksellers Foundation for Freedom of Expression, among others, have sponsored Banned Books Week to highlight the importance of the Freedom to Read. This year, Banned Books Week runs from September 29-Oct 6th.

Much more.

Writers: Save the Date

2007-08-27T23:28:00.000-04:00

WriteAngles, Western New England's longest-running writers' conference, will be held on Saturday, December 1st at Willits-Halliwell, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. I'll be speaking on a panel titled: "Your Web Platform: How to use your Web presence to maximize your profile and your sales."

The conference is sponsored by the Western New England Chapter of the National Writers Union, the preeminent writers' organization in the region.

Conference details forthcoming. Watch this space. Or this space.

Stephen Baldwin: "I am going to break your face."

2007-08-11T22:10:00.000-04:00

It seemed like it was only a matter of time before actor Stephen Baldwin emerged as as a person of interest on the religious right. That's why when I read a very strange profile of him last year, I made note of it in a short diary last year. In light of Max Blumenthal's report for The Nation about Baldwin's role in Operation Strait Up, which seems destined to be much discussed around here, I thought I would reprise that diary on the flip. First a word from Max:

Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

Much more.

The Blogosphere Arrives at the Center of Public Life

2007-08-11T14:21:00.000-04:00

Today marks a turning point in the history of the blogosphere.

The New York Times has a fair and (mostly) flattering profile of our friend and pastor-to-the-blogopshere pastordan. (Pastordan responds here.) And The Washington Post op-ed page features a piece by Susan Garder and Markos Moulistas-Zuniga tiled, How We Won the Mainstream that explains how the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council epitomizes the new marginality -- and how central the progressive blogosphere has become in American politics and public life.

The effort to cast bloggers as pajama-clad losers and crazies has failed -- and a new era has begun.

The Death Rattle of the Democratic Leadership Council

2007-08-09T15:28:00.000-04:00

Markos of Daily Kos fame writes:

Fox News Democrat Harold Ford goes on Fox News to attack this site and YearlyKos. This is what the DLC has been reduced to -- going on Fox News to attack Democrats and being forced to debate a guy [Markos, on Meet the Press this Sunday] who "wasn't respectable 3 or 4 years ago" in a bid to justify their organization's existence.

So let's do a brief recap: In the last election, the DLC's hero Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary, abandoned the party and became the defacto Republican candidate, winning as an "independent." Harold Ford, darling of the DLC lost his U.S. Senate campaign in Tennessee. Now as chairman of the DLC, a corporate funded entity with 350 members, he lectures the rest of the Democratic Party on how to win, and goes on Fox News to join in the bashing of the netroots, the most dynamic element in the party; widely credited as a major factor in the retaking of both Houses of Congress.

It should go without saying that the end is near -- or at least it ought to be.

PDM's Final Endorsement of Jamie Eldridge for Congress

2007-08-05T22:05:00.000-04:00

PDM Endorses Jamie Eldridge for Congress. Here is the PDM announcement:

After careful consideration, the Statewide Coordinating Committee (SCC) voted, at its last meeting on July 15th, to recommend that PDM endorse Jamie Eldridge [www.jamieforcongress.com] in the Special Democratic Primary on September 4th in the Fifth Congressional District of Massachusetts. The SCC asked that the Executive Committee finalize the endorsement decision after allowing for comment from the broader membership. After reading member comments, the Executive Committee ratified the endorsement decision at its August 2nd meeting.

PDM members will canvass in Chelmsford on August 18th. Chapter representatives have pledged the support of chapter members for additional phone banks, canvassing, and fundraising. If you would like to participate in PDM activities to support Jamie, please contact us at letters@progressivedems.org.

Jamie is an excellent match for PDM. He is solidly progressive on all the important issues in this race, and he has also demonstrated a grassroots philosophy in the way he has organized and run his campaign. Jamie has demonstrated his progressive values through his work as a Legal Aid attorney, and in the legislature through his active and vocal support for equal marriage, closing corporate tax loopholes, and making health care a constitutional right.

As part of our evaluation process, PDM contacted supporters of the other candidates in the race. We encourage our members to learn more about the
race. Blue Mass Group [www.bluemassgroup.org] is providing extensive coverage. We also encourage you to support the Democratic nominee in the October 16th general election.

Song of Ourselves and Others

2007-08-01T01:11:00.000-04:00

If Walt Whitman were a Democrat and writing today, he might have written something like this.

Take the Bill O'Reilly Hate Tour

2007-07-30T16:47:00.000-04:00

Poor Bill O'Reilly.

The Yearly Kos convention has him apoplectic and he has his gofers grubbing around looking for any piece of dirt with which to smear the unrelated Daily Kos web site. But for high-profile coarsening of public discourse, there are few, maybe none who can match the bile and bullying of Bill O'Reilly. Dave Neiwert gives us a brief run down.

And it's really worth your time to take a look at the the nasty things he said to one of his producers who sued him for sexual harrassment in 2004.

Over at Daily Kos, Hunter has a discussion of Mr. O'Reilly's gutter standards with lots of links to sources. Here is a sample:

I'd like to point a few things out here. First, myspace.com, also owned by News Corp, just purged 29,000 convicted sex offenders from their site. That's more rapists, pedophiles, and sexual predators on a single Rupert Murdoch site then total trolls we have ever banned from ours. And yet Bill O'Reilly says nothing -- is it because, as a renowned pervert himself, he likes associating with rapists and pedophiles and sexual predators? Or is there another explanation? Bill O'Reilly's own site contains language threatening violence against Democratic leaders and presidential candidates -- and not only did he _not_ remove that language when it was pointed out, but pointing it out apparently was the far worse violation. And then he lied about it, yet again, on his own program. Is it because Bill O'Reilly is _comfortable_ with violent threats against Democrats? Perhaps he is, given his history.

O'REILLY: You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

O'Reilly is desperate. Everyone is standing up to him. And no one is afraid.

See Me on TV Online at Yearly Kos (Maybe!) UPDATED

2007-07-29T13:52:00.000-04:00

The Yearly Kos reports that there will be "wall to wall" online TV access to the Yearly Kos -- at least for those who have access to the technology. So it should be possible to see my sessions and, I guess, all of the sessions.

Ustream.TV to Provide Online Coverage of YearlyKos Convention

Ustream.TV, a online video platform, will provide LIVE interactive video coverage from the YearlyKos Convention August 2nd-5th in Chicago. There will be 3 cameras set up to cover all the various panels and keynotes. Wall to wall coverage will be provided from Thursday through Sunday. Bloggers and supporting sites can embed this live stream into their blog/site with simple HTML embed code.

Ustream.TV will also set up 1 additional camera for a live interactive interview station for bloggers, campaigns, supporters, and other individuals where they can talk to a LIVE online audience about their organizations through our chatrooms.

About Ustream.tv

Ustream.tv is a platform that enables anyone - with a camera and an Internet connection - to broadcast live interactive video to a global audience. Founded in early 2007 by two West Point graduates and U.S. Military Veterans looking to develop a live video solution for the average user, and lead by Chris Yeh, serial entrepreneur and technology investor, Ustream.TV is a privately held company based in Palo Alto, California.

For more information, visit http://www.Ustream.TV.

(For some preconvention media coverage see the front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle: Blogger Fest A Magnet for Liberal Politicos.)

[When I first posted this, the words "all" and "wall to wall" above, indicated to me that every session will be broadcast. Apparently, not necessarily so.And indeed, a closer look at the schedule indicates that 3 cameras are not enough to cover all of he sesssions going on simultaneously. Nevertheless, there is a list of options for participation from home, including but not limited to various forms of broadcast. I have no idea what will come out of my sessions at this point. There are also ways to find out about what is planned. Start at the link above, and stay tuned!]

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts' Statewide Meeting

2007-07-28T14:30:00.000-04:00

PDM's 2007 Statewide Meeting will be held on Saturday September 8, 9am to 4pm (location TBA).

In the last few years, PDM’s efforts have contributed to many progressive victories, helping to elect Governor Patrick, state legislators, and local government leaders. Unfortunately, anti-government sentiments often seem to dominate public opinion.

To make our Progressive goals a reality, we must reengage the public in a positive debates about public policy that focuses on the kind of state and communities we want to have. This year's statewide meeting will be devoted to starting and sustaining that new conversation.

Several members of our Statewide Coordinating Committee recently attended a workshop sponsored by One Massachusetts and Public Works: The Demos Center for the Public Sector. Demos has been doing extensive research to identify how to communicate more effectively about government, its purpose, and the many issues we all care about. Their approach is based on identifying enduring values, rather than developing "messages" that might poll well at one point in time.

SCC members who attended the workshop were so impressed that we have asked Demos' to work with us to prepare our 2007 statewide meeting. So . . . Come, meet your fellow PDM members, share what you’ve been doing, and begin to develop new skills - learn how you can incorporate Demos' approach in your every-day communications, advocacy and policy work.

Kos vs. O'Reilly

2007-07-28T13:41:00.000-04:00

It all started when Fox News bloviator Bill O'Reilly claimed Daily Kos is a hate site, and that therefore, Jet Blue should pull out as a corporate sponsor of the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago, next week. Jet Blue's contribution was in the form of in kind donation of tickets for some speakers, so they couldn't take those back, but they did ask YK to remove their logo from the web site and conference materials. On July 16, O'Reilly said Daily Kos is "hate of the worst order."

Well, bloviator Bill has kept up the drumbeat. So far he has compared Daily Kos to David Duke; the KKK, Benito Mussolini, Nazis and Al Capone. It is difficult to think of anyone on national television lower than Bill O'Reilly.

Well the blogosphere is fighting back and contacting O'Reilly's advertisers about the poor standards of his program; notably the despicable lies he tells. So far, Lowe's, the big home improvement store chain, of which there are a number here in MA, has pulled its ads -- but competitor Home Depot remains an advertiser. As Markos says, two can play at this game. Click on the link for info on O'Reilly advertisers, and Fox advertisers in general

Now, the Associated Press reports that a coalition of groups is ramping-up a campaign to pressure Fox advertisers.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos...

Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

''We're not in the business of censoring media,'' Shields said. ''We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available.''

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

It looks like Home Depot may be in for some surprises.

Theocrat(s) of the Week

2007-07-25T23:19:00.000-04:00

Our Distinuished Panel of Judges faced a vexatious choice when they returned from vacation.

They found themselves deeply -- albeit breifly -- divided over the top two contenders for Theocrat of the Week. Agonizing seconds passed before a tie was declared between Pope Benedict XVI and fellow Catholic, U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), perfect unanimity was restored.

Much more.

PDM Makes Preliminary Endorsement of Jamie Eldridge for Congress

2007-07-25T22:23:00.000-04:00

Openings for seats in Congress do not come up all that often. That's why the open seat in MA's 5th Congressional District is so important. In the hot Democratic primary race, Rep. Jamie Eldridge received an important endorsement today from Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (pending a final round of member input; but the endorsement is all but certain.)

This is very good news for the Eldridge campaign in his tight Democratic primary. But why, you may ask, is this, among his many impressive endorsements so signficant? It's because PDM makes few endorsements; and it generally doesn't make endorsements unless it intends to make a serious effort to help a campaign. Thus PDM has developed a reputation for not just lending its name to candiates -- but to getting things done and making a difference.

PDM was an early endorser of now governor Deval Patrick. At the time of PDM's endorsement, Patrick had little name recognition and was far behind in every poll. PDM members played key volunteer roles in the Patrick campain from early on -- many serving as town and Senate District coordinators. That had been the idea of PDM all along. That when a reform candidate comes along, he or she would necessarily be the underdog; the least well financed; opposed and resented by the party establishment and treated with great skepticism by the media. PDM has a statewide network of experienced (and sometimes brand new) electoral activists ready to put resources into strategic races and when that kind of help is needed most.

Here is part of what PDM statewide chair Peter Dolan wrote in his endorsement announcement this evening:

After careful consideration, the Statewide Coordinating Committee (SCC) voted, at its last meeting on July 15th, to recommend that PDM endorse Jamie Eldridge in the Special Democratic Primary on September 4 in the Fifth Congressional District of Massachusetts...

All chapters except Lexington were represented at the meeting, and the vote was unanimous. In addition, the chapter representatives present all pledged, should Jamie become the officially endorsed candidate, to personally organize meaningful support in their chapter such as volunteer time for canvassing, phonebanking, or fund-raising. Also present, but not voting, were representatives of our chapters-in-formation in Chelmsford and Lower Worcester County.

In a nutshell, the race shapes up as follows. There are five candidates, four of whom might appeal to progressives. One, Jamie Eldridge, was seen by the SCC as an excellent match for our endorsement criteria. Jamie is solidly progressive on all the important issues in this race, and has also demonstrated a grassroots philosophy in the way he has organized and run his campaign. Jamie strongly favors a single-payer health care system, and takes the most progressive position of all the candidates on other key issues as well. Jamie has demonstrated his support for these principles by his work as a Legal Aid attorney, and in the legislature through his active and vocal support for such things as equal marriage, closing corporate tax loopholes, and making health care a constitutional right.

While their positions on issues are generally not as progressive as Jamie's, Eileen Donaghue, Niki Tsongas, and Barry Finegold also have support among progressive Democrats. We found it noteworthy, however, that Jamie was the only candidate who fully supports single payer health care. Jim Miceli, the fifth candidate, has positions on several issues that seem inconsistent with our progressive philosophy.

No doubt, PDM will have more to say about Eldridge, but for today, I'd like to point to his clear-cut opposition to the war in Iraq:

This war was wrong from the beginning, and I have opposed it before it ever began. Ending the war is my top priority, and is the main reason that I'm running for U.S. Congress. Like you, I am frustrated with politicians in Washington spending their time debating non-binding resolutions and taking symbolic stands. It is time to retake leadership and bring about an end now – not at some to-be-determined date far in the future.

For a progressive Democratic future: universal health care and a decisive end to the war in Iraq, please donate here.

Theocrat of the Week

2007-07-08T02:53:00.000-04:00

A pluralist society does not recognize any one -- or any religious truth at all. That's why it is antithetical to all things theocratic. What holds a pluralist society together is the recognition and commitment -- as well as constitutional and legal doctrines -- that every person has the right to believe as they will; to change their minds; and to engage in spirited public debate about, well, whatever people want to talk about. The curious position of the theocrat, is that he must navigate the pluralist maze, seeking to create conditions for a more theocratic society. Sometimes, this means making temporary alliances with other theocrats -- even those whose theocratic vision is radically different! Sometimes such alliances are necessary to force governments to adopt policies against things like sexuality education and condom distribution to prevent AIDS. Fortunately, many theocrats can agree that withholding condoms from the general public is of the highest importance. Also, all good theocrats have the common goal of the demolition of the wall of separation between church and state. (One wall -- thwarts them all!)

But there are also times when a good theocrat needs to be resolute; able to say exactly who's who and what's what. It is for just such a demonstration of this necessary prerequiste for theocratic leadership that Our Distinguished Panel of Judges now lifts up Al Mohler, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Mohler impressed everyone this week with his forthright statement that Mormons are not Christians (Mitt Romney not withstanding).

Much more.

Anatomy of a Smear

2007-07-07T23:50:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago in New York City, the publisher of Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion, held a panel discussion as part of the launch of the book. Scheduled to speak were co-authors Sheldon Culver and John Dorhauer, Michelle Goldberg, Chris Hedges (author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America) and me. Hedges, a divinity school graduate and former New York Times reporter who teaches at Princeton, was ultimately unable to attend -- but we were joined by a young spy from the Washington, DC-based neoconservative Institute on Religion and Democracy.

This was not really a surprise. IRD uses a mix of staff and freelancers to infiltrate events of all kinds -- denominational and related interest group meetings; as well as events that have no obvious connection to their purported mission of "renewal" of the mainline protestant churches in the U.S. In this case, the spy was Rebekah Sharpe, a 2005 graduate of the University of North Carolina, who has written a series of apparently freelance reports for the IRD web site.

Usually when I write about aspects of the quarter century campaign by IRD and its neoconservative and religious right allies to disrupt and divide the mainline prostestant churches -- I am writing from a distance. But this time, it's personal. The writer and/or her editors have published a piece that grossly misrepresents what I said that evening in New York. In short, it's a smear.

Much more.

The Honor Roll of Theocrats of the Week

2007-07-02T14:17:00.000-04:00

While this week bloggers around the world are engaged in the Blog Against Theocracy, we here at Theocrat of the Week wish to highlight the many fine people on whom who Our Distiguished Panel of Judges has bestowed the honor of Theocrat of the Week.

Here we unscroll the Honor Roll (so far):

I'll Be at the Yearly Kos

2007-06-28T21:49:00.000-04:00

The full schedule for the Yearly Kos is not yet out, but consider yourself among the first to know that there will be at least two sessions focused on the religious right.

The theme of the conference is "Building a Netroots Nation." It will take place August 2-5 at the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago, IL, and will bring together more than 1,500 political leaders, grassroots activists, and of course ... bloggers!

Among the highlights will be a Democratic presidential candidates forum moderated by blogger Jeffrey Feldman of Frameshop, who has been a guest front pager here -- at Talk to Action. Candidates who have confirmed so far: Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

Chip Berlet, Talk to Action contributor, and Senior Analyst, at Political Research Associates will join me in addressing the question, "Is the Religious Right Really Dead?" -- and -- "What to do about the religious right." Both sessions will be moderated by Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, President of Chicago Theological Seminary, who has also been a guest front pager at Talk to Action. Much more.

Theocrat of the Week

2007-06-26T00:13:00.000-04:00

It was only a matter of time before Jim Tonkowich arrived in the winner's circle as Our Theocrat of the Week. As the president of the cleverly named Institute on Religion and Democracy, he has waged theocratic initiatives under cover of "democracy" since becoming IRD president in 2006. Tonkowich's squad of PR and political operatives seek to assist disgruntled factions in the mainline Protestant churches to be more effective in waging overt and covert theocratic warfare. All this and more might merit recognition -- but that is not why Our Distinguished Panel of Judges selected Tonkowich.

Much more.

A Conservative Crack-up at The American Specator

2007-06-22T21:47:00.000-04:00

When the religious right careens off the road of reason, the crash can be spectacular. Thursday night the sky was lit by the firey embers of the ravings of one Jeffrey Lord a former political director in the Reagan White House; duly recorded at The American Spectator.

On the eve of the national gathering of the United Church of Christ in Hartford, Connecticut, Lord compared his own church to the former Soviet Union and this comparison is justified he implies, because the leadership of the UCC is somehow analagous to the Talk to Action site guidelines! As a co-founder of the site, naturally this came as a surprise to me -- as did Lord's claim that our modest effort and the activities of the national UCC are also somehow like Harvard and contemporary Russia.

Before we examine the smoking wreckage of Lord's rhetorical vehicle, let's take a look at tracks of his smear.

Much more.

Abortion, the Movies, and the Politics of '08

2007-06-21T14:17:00.000-04:00

Lake of Fire, the Hollywood documentary film about the politics of abortion has been appearing at film festivals en route to theaters. But its official release in October will be too soon for many. It is one of those large cultural and political events that will set back the unprepared and advance the efforts of those savvy enough to anticipate it. Indeed, those who want to defend and advance reproductive rights, and those who keep an eye on how to best contend with the religious right, will be wise to take the possible impact of this film fully into account. That the film comes out just four months before the early, and perhaps decisive, presidential primaries may be inconvenient for just about everyone concerned. But that's just the way it is. Forewarned is forearmed.

I have been following the film's progress in part because I am in it (as a talking head), and in part because I believe the film is a wildcard in the politics of abortion as we go into the 2008 election season. Much more.

The Religious Right Lost a Big One in MA Today

2007-06-14T23:00:00.000-04:00

The religious right lost a big one today in Massachusetts.

Let me rephrase that.

Today's vote on marriage equality in Massachusetts was a crushing defeat for the religious right and all who pander to them.

The dark cloud of bigotry that has long loomed on the political horizon has been dispersed; Beacon Hill has lived up to its name -- and stands as a shining example to the nation and to the world.

Much more here.

A Progressive Candidate for the Open Congressional Seat in MA

2007-06-13T23:37:00.000-04:00

Jamie Eldridge seems to be the favorite of progressive Democrats everywhere for the Congressional seat just vacated by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) who leaves to head UMASS at Lowell. I will be writing more about his campaign -- it's a long way to the September primary. But as always, a good place to begin to get to know State Sen. Eldridge, is his campaign web site.

Will MA State Legislators Vote to Invite the Religious Right to try to Make the Bay State the Anti-Gay State in '08?

2007-06-13T15:26:00.000-04:00

At the international HQ of James Dobson's Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colorado -- all eyes are focused on the Massachusetts Statehouse on Beacon Hill. The FOF "Citzen Link" news reports of calls for "God's intervention" -- but turned to quotes and analysis from FOF Action's state issues analyst; a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Family Institute, (MFI, a state political affiliate of FOF), and a spokesperson for VoteonMarriage, the coalition spearheaded by MFI and can be found on the MFI web site.

"The opposition has decided to use their considerable power and influence to see that the marriage amendment is defeated," said Mona Passignano, state issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "And the people of Massachusetts who want the opportunity to vote on marriage need our help -- and they desperately need God's intervention.

This could be the shape of things to come if opponents of marriage equality succeed in getting the necessary 50 votes to send a referendum to the voters to amend the state constitution in 2008. There may be a vote on Thursday, June 14th. If cooler heads are unable to peel away enough votes from the anti-gay hot heads the vote may be postponed by legislative leaders.

But if the referendum does, finally go to the voters, the national religious right will pour money and organizers into the state, pitting the citizens of Massachusetts against themselves, the way that they have done in other states, and the way that religious right "renewal groups" have done in the mainline Protestant churches.

The religious right needs only a quarter of the legislature -- 50 votes -- for the referendum to move onto the ballot in November 2008. As of now, there appear to be 57 votes Democratic Governor Deval Patrick who was elected as an unequivocally pro-marriage equality candidate last year, is lobbying legislators heavily, and notes that if the initiative makes the ballot, it will be a major distraction from the work of the state.

Peter Dolan, statewide chair of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts reminds us

There is a high probability that on Thursday the legislature will vote on whether the proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate marriage equality should appear on the November 2008 election ballot.

Mass Equality (one of our partner organization in Mass Alliance) has a tool on their website that allows you to find (State Rep & Senator] contact information if you don't already know it:

If you have already done this, or still have some time to devote to this issue, take a few minutes to review these maps on the Mass Equality website ... and contact people you know in districts where the legislator has not confirmed opposition to this proposed amendment to our state constitution. Ask your friends and family members in those districts to call their legislators.

Let's do what can now to preserve this right for same-sex couples, and avoid a costly and needlessly divisive ballot campaign over the next year and a half.

Earlier this year, Gov. Patrick said:

"Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now.

"For practical reasons as well, its time to move on. Whatever ones views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth. It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people. We cannot in good conscience ask these unmet needs to wait while a few individuals try to insert discrimination into our Constitution.

And more recently, the Associated Press reports:

...on Saturday [Patrick, who] became the first sitting governor to march in Boston's gay pride parade, has warned of ``great passions and great fear and great intolerance'' among supporters of the amendment.

``All the (court) did was affirm an old principle that people come before their government as equals, that if the government is going to give marriage licenses to anyone, then they must give them to everybody, even if your choice of spouse is someone of the same gender,'' Patrick said.

A very few people hold in their hands an historic opportunity -- to end, perhaps forever, the division and hatred over this issue here in Massachusetts. Elected leaders so rarely get an opportunity such as this -- to be a profile in courage in the best tradition outlined by John F. Kennedy in his classic book by that title, and to decide to be on the right side of history when it matters most.

Only a handful of votes will decide whether Massachusetts goes the way of another season of hateful division led by the religious right.

The MA Dem Primary Season is Underway!

2007-06-11T22:10:00.000-04:00

Last week, 25 Massachusetts state legislators were named Theocrats of the Week for their co-sponsorship of a bill that would require teachers and any other school official to get permission from parents in order to discuss homosexuality -- and a host of other matters in school.

State Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford) apparently couldn't take the heat and dropped his sponsorship (and lost his award to boot) Too late! He has already drawn a primary challenger for September: Cos, at Blue Mass Group reports:

Patrick McCabe was born in neighboring Somerville, to a working class family; his grandparents were in Medford. He worked three jobs growing up, then went to West Point because "I wanted to go somewhere where they teach leadership." After graduating, he served seven years in the Army, as a Ranger and then a company commander in the 101st Airborne in Kosovo. He went on tour with his wife in the USO, entertaining the troops for a couple of years, before returning to Medford. He now works as Organizing and Communications Director for SEIU local 1984.

McCabe is running to support health care, higher education, and other things important to working families. He is pro-choice, pro-[marriage] equality and supports funding stem cell research.

Pics from the Panel in NYC

2007-06-07T21:48:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I moderated a panel discussion in New York hosted by IG Publishing as part of the launch of Sheldon Culver and John Dorhauer's new book Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion.

Freelance journalist Lindsay Beyerstein was on hand to blog John and Sheldon's part of the panel and shoot some pics of John, Sheldon, Michelle Goldberg, and me.

25 Massachusetts State Legislators Earn the Coveted Theocrat of the Week Award

2007-06-03T20:53:00.000-04:00

A bi-partisan group of at least 25 members of the Massachusetts state House and Senate have collectively earned the coveted Theocrat of the Week award for their co-sponsorship of a bill requiring teachers to get permission from theocrats in order to discuss homosexuality -- not to mention the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal.

Speaking in NYC and New Hampshire

2007-06-02T00:44:00.000-04:00

I will be speaking at two events this coming week. I am honored to be moderating a panel discusion in connection with the publication of Talk to Action's John Dorhauer and his colleague Sheldon Culver's book Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion, on June 6th in New York. I will be also speaking on Saturday and Sunday, June 9th and 10th at DemocracyFest, a national progressive political gathering near Manchester , New Hampshire.

Steeplejacking panel discussion: Wednesday, June 6th at 6:30 PM at the Tank, 279 Church Street (between Franklin and White), and is sponsored by Ig Publishing. Joining John and me for the discussion will be Michelle Goldberg, author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America;

Democracy Fest, is associated with Democracy for America, an outgrowth of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign for president. The event features, among other things, skill-building trainings for electoral activists from all over the country; and addresses from former Senator John Edwards (D-NC); Rep.Carol Porter Shea (D-NH); and Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. I will be speaking on Saturday afternoon, and participate in a workshop on the Religious Right and Democracy on Sunday.

DemocracyFest is an annual educational and inspirational festival for the progressive grassroots. DemocracyFest gives grassroots progressives the knowledge and skills they need to take our country back. Participants return home to their communities with renewed commitment, and new skills to help them making a difference.

Previous DemocracyFests have been held in California, Texas and Massachusetts. The event combines progressive issues with politics and entertainment. Join us this year at the Historic Wayfarer Inn in Manchester, NH on June 9 and 10, 2007.

Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion

2007-06-01T03:53:00.000-04:00

The story of John Dorhauer's new book, coauthored with his UCC colleague Sheldon Culver, began with Talk to Action. I think that is one of the main reasons why I was asked to contribute an introduction -- which I am posting here in its (barring any last minute edits) entirety. As part of the launch, the publisher is hosting a panel discussion in New York City on June 6th featuring John and me, as well as authors Michelle Goldberg and Chris Hedges. (Details below)

In 2005, a few colleagues and I decided to create an international, interactive blog to counter the religious right -- one of the most successful and powerful political and social movements in American history. One of my top priorities in picking featured writers was to find someone who could write knowledgeably and authoritatively about the attacks on the mainline churches by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, its satellite groups and those informed and influenced by their activities. The IRD's operation on behalf of the financiers of neoconservatism and the religious right is an historic and catalytic force reshaping religion in America and in the world. There needed to be a place where people could come to find resources and compare notes -- and I wanted the blog we were creating to be that place.

My search led me to John Dorhauer. We talked, and in the course of our conversation, I said that I thought that war had been declared on the mainline churches, a war of attrition, being played out in thousands of churches across the country, but that the churches aren't acting like they are even aware of it. "If there is a war, and one side doesn't know it..." John finished my sentence: "You lose."

John seized the opportunity and started blogging at our new site, Talk to Action. Each week, for the past year and a half, he has tried to describe some aspect of what is going on, to to distill what he--and his colleague Sheldon Culver--have learned through their research and experiences as regional staff of the United Church of Christ. Along the way, John has named names, dates and places, and described the efforts to divide congregations and denominations that he and Sheldon--as well as church leaders across the country--have witnessed and documented.

Eventually, John's posts caught the notice of the publisher of this book. I'm delighted that the hard work, and the dedication that he and Sheldon have shown for the churches they love is being recognized in this way. But more than that, I am delighted that you now hold in your hands the opportunity to benefit from their knowledge and experience.

Steeplejacking is a primer on how to engage in the battles that are already underway, as well as the ones that are yet to come. Indeed, this book may be most valuable to those who want to head off problems before they begin. You can find herein, information on how to recognize signs that an attack may be underway, and learn what kinds of steps to take to fight it off. John and Sheldon have drawn on an extensive body of scholarship and investigative journalism to help make sense of their own research and experiences -- to offer a book of immediate practical use to members and leaders of mainline churches.

I think it is important to stress that differences and disagreements are normal in any democratic polity. The reason we have democratic institutions is not only to avoid tyranny, but to draw on the wisdom gleaned, and the consensus gained, from the fair airing of differing points of view. This is the hallmark of the governance of mainline protestant churches in America. But what we are seeing, and what this book seeks to address, is that there are people aligned with outside political and financial interests who have learned to abuse the openness of democratic polities; undermining and dividing the very institutions that democratic polities seek to mediate and govern. There are two main consequences of all of this. First, individual churches are being divided, and many are leaving their denominations altogether. (And as we have seen in the Episcopal and Methodist Churches, national scale schisms are also being attempted.) Second, the church in general is becoming less able to support the peace and social justice mission that they have so ably led for well over a century.

Wherever you may stand on the theological or political spectrum, may you find the courage to listen, and to learn from the experiences of John Dorhauer and Sheldon Culver. I say courage because what they report in this book may be hard for many to hear. It can be difficult to believe that such a cynical campaign is underway. It can be even harder if you happen to know any of the people involved. But as we all know, sometimes people have bad intentions. To consider the possibility is not to make an accusation; it is merely being open to the world as it is. Where courage comes in, is when we consider being open to things that could change the way we think, and change our relationships with our communities. Faced with just such a situation, we are fortunate to have wise and knowledgeable guides like John and Sheldon to show us the things we might rather not see, to help us cope with what we have learned, and help us become wiser and stronger for having been through it. I commend this book to you in that spirit.

To help kick off the publication of the book, there will be a panel discussion in New York City: Wednesday, June 6th at 6:30 PM at the Tank, 279 Church Street (between Franklin and White), and is sponsored by Ig Publishing. Joining John and me for the discussion will be Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America; Michelle Goldberg, author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

Pastordan Further Dissects Newt Gingrich's Theocrat of the Week Award-Winning Address

2007-05-29T14:11:00.000-04:00

Pastordan at Street Prophets further mines Gingrich's award-winning commencement speech at Liberty University, founded by the late Jerry Falwell for theocratic gems and other riches of understanding the wily pol and possibly, maybe, presidential wannabe. And along the way, offers some pull-no-punches commentary:

I can't think of anyone less qualified to uphold dignity and seriousness than this narcissistic buffoon. How many affairs has he had? How many scandals and sleazy political operations has his name been connected to? How many wives has he summarily dumped in favor of a newer, shinier model? How many times has his petty, venal, grasping hypocrisy been exposed for the whole world to see, and he wants to lecture us about dignity and seriousness? Give me a freaking break.

He ought to hold his announcement in a circus sideshow. I double-dog dare him. It's only there, among the pinheads, that he'll find the proper stage for his bilious mixture of smarm, authoritarian pandering, and community-college-stoner philosophizing.I don't know what's worse, that he's going to postpone a potential announcement so he can cash in on his seminars, or that he's trying to make himself out to be Al Gore's equal, able to float above the messy preliminary campaign in favor of a late, authoritative move into the field.

Either way, he's running, and being damn clever about it, too. He's out there sharpening his stump speech and making friends while Rudy and John and Mitt take the heat.

I think this is an important point. Gingrich is running as a non-candidate, making speeches, selling books, punditizing on TV -- and reinventing his political persona to conform to the ideology and ambitions of Christian nationalist constituencies in ways that are not possible for the current GOP top teir. Meanwhile, he is also facing much less scrutiny than if he was a declared candidate, or seeming to be close to becoming one. But he is clearly making himself available if none of the current crop quite catches on, or get ripped-apart by howling mobs of disenchanted Republican factions.

Needless to say, his claim to be the champion of American Religion doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. His conflation of the Declaration of Independence and Natural Law is bad politics and bad theology too....

This is obviously a red-meat occasion, but it's equally obvious that Gingrich is running to the hard right. His twin specters of the radical Islamist and radical Secularist are sure to become a staple of conservative fear-mongering in the next couple of years.

But of all the scary crap Gingrich has to say in this speech - and there's plenty - nobody seems to have picked out the scariest bit of all:

I also agree with Pastordan, that there is much in Gingrich's speech "to digest and come to terms with" and that it is worth reading the whole thing. This may be a bellwether moment in the history of the religious right, and very possibly in American politics if Gingrich's gambit works -- as well as if it does not. Gingrich edging over into Christian nationalism and actually seeking to be the candidate of the religious right seems so unlikely, and yet...

The Courage to be Rwandan

2007-05-28T23:57:00.001-04:00

The Commencement season has rolled around again, and as I hear reports of what various important people have said this year, especially presidential candidates, I can't help but be reminded of a commencement address I wrote about two years ago. It is a commencement address for all seasons; for all schools and for all time.

Commencement addresses are tricky things. Most speakers go in knowing that expectations are at once very low and very high. People would love to hear a remarkable address, but they know they are unlikely to hear one, the best efforts of the speaker not withstanding. But sometimes a commencement speaker rises to the occasion and captivates an audience -- and is remembered -- if for no other reason, than for having done so.

Dr. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International cut-through the summer haze with just such a speech Oberlin College in 2005. His remarks -- not only moved the audience but lit-up the blogophere. A member of the class of 2005 was so moved that he posted the speech on the Daily Kos where it topped the rec list. As one commenter wrote: "All that I can say is that I wish my days were blessed with more words that could leave me feeling like I feel right now after reading that."

Dr. Schulz had been much in the news that week, due to Amnesty's release of a report on human rights abuses and torture of prisoners by the United States at Gitmo and beyond. Amnesty called for an international investigation and the prosecution of any U.S. government officials found responsible.

But Schulz, a 1971 Oberlin graduate was at his alma mater to connect the values of the college to his hopes for the mission of the students as they enter the world beyond. Along the way, he told a story that I will never forget:

"In the midst of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda," Schulz recalled, "a group of machete-wielding militiamen attacked a girl's school in the middle of the night. The teenagers were rousted from their beds about 2:00 AM and forced to line up in the dining hall. They were ordered to separate themselves, Hutu from Tutsi, so that only the Tutsi would die.

But the girls refused.

A second time the commander ordered them to divide up by ethnic group. But still they refused. And finally one of the girls found her voice and, though very frightened, this is what it was reported later that she said: "We cannot separate ourselves, you see, because we are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi; we are Rwandan" at which point every one of them was slaughtered."

"But what a legacy they leave! 'We are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi. We are Rwandan.' In that simple sentiment that young girl bespoke a graciousness upon which depends the salvation of the world."

Here in the United States we do not face such unspeakable horrors. But we do live in difficult times, with much at stake. For those of us who did not happen to graduate from anything this year, and even for those of us who did, let's adopt Dr. Schulz as our commencement speaker, and as we go forward to face the challenges of our time -- let's have the courage to be Rwandan.

Theocrat of the Week

2007-05-28T21:28:00.000-04:00

Newt Gingrich

FrederickClarkson.Com... Returns!

2007-05-28T19:47:00.000-04:00

We here at FrederickClarkson.Com are pleased to announce that we have returned from wherever it was we have been. Suffice to say there were technical difficulties, we were busy, and we started a new international interactive group blog called Talk to Action. But we are glad to be back.

Before we begin, a few announcements:

We are presently out of copies of Eternal Hostility, so please do not order them. (Yet). Watch this space for updates.

If you frequent this site, not that you would, since nothing has happened here for a year-and-a-half -- and we here at FrederickClarkson.com are certain that you are smarter than that -- but if you do happen to stop by, don't be surprised to see some changes as construction crews rip apart the original design; make some repairs on some site oddities visible to the discerning eye, and otherwise update us from the dark ages of 2005.

So for now, we will all have to be content with fresh content on the construction site.

New Blog Site Takes On The Religious Right

2005-11-24T20:15:00.000-05:00

Talk to Action, the first national interactive blog site devoted to discussing the theocratic Christian Right -- and what to do about it -- launched on Monday, November 21st. I would have posted about it sooner here, but for some technical gitches.) Ths site is intended to provide a platform for the kinds of conversations that need to take place in order for us to see the strength of the theocratic movement recede in favor of a refreshed and rebounding constitutional democratic movement. That is a tall order, I know. But I think it is not only necessary, but possible. And I invite you to join us in making the vision a reality.

I have been blogging for only a little over a year -- since about two months before the election. I had added a blog to my personal, professional web site because I thought I would like to post a few items a week. I honestly knew nothing about the greater blogosphere -- then my friend Ann Rose told me about this place called The Daily Kos. It changed my life. It is a daily miracle of extraordinary writing and online political conversation unfolding before your eyes. I also learned new dimensions of what a scoop-based blog site could be this past year from Booman Tribune, My Left Wing, Street Prophets, and most recently Political Cortex -- where I was privileged to be on the inside of it's development at the same time fellow blogger Bruce Wilson and I were cobbling together Talk to Action. I am grateful to Tom Ball and my fellow Cortexans for all I have learned -- and I just hope I can continue to keep up with them!

The blogosphere is growing, maturing, and breaking new ground all the time. Talk to Action embraces what has come before, at least those parts that Bruce Wilson and I, and other of the founding Talk to Action writers have experienced of it -- but we are also striking out in some new directions.

Talk to Action will differ from other major sites in that it seeks to be less freewheeling in tone and content. Our focus is narrower -- our topic is the religious right and what to do about it. We are also putting an editorial framework on the discussion. Here is a quote from our statement of purpose:

"We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic. We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the general mission of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind. It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. Similarly, religious debates are off topic, especially debates between theism and atheism. Finally, we are nonpartisan. While political discussions are welcome, -- even central to the purpose of this site -- we do not wish the site itself to be a platform that is necessarily for or opposed to any particular party."

We are also different from other major sites in that half of our writers are new to the blogosphere. We expect that many of our readers will be as well.

But like most of the progressive blogosphere, we see the need for changes in the way that we all think and act in political life. With regard to the religious right, consider this: If what people have thought and done about the religious right so far is so smart, how come it is the most powerful faction in the GOP in the Congress? How come intelligent design is one of the biggest issues in the country? Why is it that the bedrock notion of separation of state is increasingly being called into question by top appointees to the federal bench?

I hope that Talk to Action will be a place where we can reconsider some things. Refresh our political thinking and skills -- and leave bad ideas and political habits behind. Our first post on our first day, I think epitomizes the kind of sharp-eyed analysis we want to bring to bear on history and current events. Contributing writer Esther Kaplan, author of with God on their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House, discusses a major shift in the stance of the Anti-Defamation League with regard to the Christian Right:

"It seems to have finally dawned on Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League and a highly visible Jewish community talking head, that he should stop making nice with the Christian right. Just a few years ago he was calling on American Jews to show evangelical conservatives some gratitude for their hard-line support for Israel. But last week, Foxman used the ADL's annual conference to sound the alarm about attempts to "Christianize America" .... It's great to see Abe Foxman wake up and smell the coffee."

Also featured on launch day, are Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates who has been a leading thinker, writer and activist on matters involving the religious right for 25 years; and Jonathan Hutson, an attorney and progressive Christian activist who launches a series of essays he provocatively calls "Cross Examination."

I am thrilled an honored by the remarkable group that has come together to make Talk to Action happen: In addition to Chip, Esther and Jonathan, here is the rest of the founding group of featured writers:

Joan Bokaer, founder, Theocracy Watch; Michelle Goldberg, senior writer, Salon.com; Joel Pelleteir is an artist whose remarkable painting American Fundamentalists is touring the U.S.; Michelle Murrain is a seminarian at the Pacific School of Religion; Bruce Prescott, executive director of Oklahoma Mainstream Baptists; Max Blumenthal writes about politics and religion for The Nation and The Huffington Post; Cynthia Cooper is an attorney, author, and playwright; Scott Isebrand operates the blog site Religious Right Watch; Lorie Johnson operates the blog site Dark Christianity; Carlos Stouffer operates the blog site Jesus Politics; Pastordan operates the blog site Street Prophets.

These short descriptions cannot begin to describe the depth of their knowledge, the vividness of their writing, and the originality of their thought. You'll just have to stop by, see for yourself, and enjoy their company

At this writing, we are still scrambling to add features and work out the bugs. Each time you visit -- and I hope you will -- you are likely to see changes; some large, some small. Please be patient with us. We are in this for the long run, and we hope you will be too.

Clarkson Speaking in Cambridge

2005-11-14T21:12:00.000-05:00

If you plan on being in Boston on Sunday, November 27th, you are invited to hear my speech titled, The Dramatic Progress of the Theocratic Right -- What in the World do We Do Now?.

Phillips Brooks House, Harvard Yard, 1:30 PM.

The event, which is free and open to the general public, is sponsored by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and by the Humanist Association of Massachusetts.

Fire Bill O'Reilly: Day II

2005-11-13T00:56:00.000-05:00

Fox News biggie, Bill O'Reilly, the man who would cheer if Al Qaeda attacked San Francisco, is unapologetic. "What I said isn't controversial," he said on a conservative radio station in response to critics. "What I said needed to be said." Think Progress has the transcript and the audio.

Hunter is ratcheting up the pressure at The Daily Kos. And commenters at Political Cortex have info on who to contact to get O'Reilly fired.

The controversy is not blowing over in San Francisco where it continues to make news.

Fire Bill O'Reilly

2005-11-12T05:24:00.000-05:00

On November 8, 2005 Bill O'Reilly aired a radio broadcast that will live in infamy.

It seems that O'Reilly didn't like it when San Franciscans recently exercised their constitutional rights and passed a non-binding ballot measure urging high schools and colleges to ban military recruiting on campus. So does he criticize them? Call for a boycott? No. He says that the the American armed forces should not defend San Francisco -- and that Al Qeada should go ahead and attack.

His named target? The landmark Coit Tower, a monument dedicated to the heroic firefighters who fought to save San Francisco after the great earthquake a century ago.

Media Matters for America reports:

"Fox News host Bill O'Reilly declared on the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off-limits to you, except San Francisco."

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

San Francisco City Supervisor Chris Daly responded on the KRON 4 Morning News:

"Coit Tower's a monument to San Francisco's firefighters. They put out the fires in San Francisco after the great quake. American heroes -- they were there on Sept. 11 and now you want al-Qaida to blow up Coit Tower? Give us a break. You are out of line."

John Hanley, president of the San Francisco Firefighter's Union Local 798, was incensed.

"Coit Tower is a monument to the bravery of the men and women of the San Francisco Fire Department," Hanley said. "When Bill O'Reilly makes an attack on Coit Tower, he's attacking us and our bravery."

He added, "Mr. O'Reilly, maybe we should bring you into some of our burning buildings and see how brave you are."

O'Reilly's tirade has set off a firestorm of criticism that is unlikely to let up anytime soon. Nor should it.

"It's harder still," writes Daly on his blog, "to miss that

Bill O'Reilly is full of hate. It's fine to disagree with San Francisco's majority opinion for gun control, against the war and military recruiting, or for gay marriage. But to green-light another terrorist attack on American soil crosses way over the line. We are a diverse city with people from all walks of life. Families with children live here, Mr. O'Reilly. Your comments are chilling, un-American and make you little better than the terrorists.

Fox News and Westwood One have a great responsibility as broadcasters to the American public. Both should take immediate action to terminate their contracts with Mr. O'Reilly."

Media Matters for America has the contact info for O'Reilly and his syndicators, as well as the transcript and audio tape of the broadcast.

Over at The Daily Kos, people are talking about contacting O'Reilly's advertisers. Good idea.

O'Reilly is a anti-democratic demagogue. He is a digrace to the broadcast industry, and he should be fired from Fox News.

O'Reilly should apologize to the nation.

And then he should go away.

[Crossposted at Political Cortex]

Focus on Your Local Focus on the Family

2005-11-10T02:52:00.000-05:00

Anti-gay politics is at the center of American life these days. Some argue that many Republican successes are predicated on the idea of "turning out the base" with this "wedge issue." While it is not always clear that this tactic is as successful as some say, there is no question that it is taking place. Anti-gay politics is a staple of American life. So, who exactly is behind this?

Well, there are many actors, of course. But I want to focus on just one, multidimensional player: Focus on the Family headed by Christian radio psycologist James Dobson. And I want to zero in on one aspect in particular -- Focus on the Family political operations in the states.

Several years ago, I wrote a study about state level conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, published by Political Research Associates (pdf file). There were two, related networks started in tandem in the late 1980s. One emphasized the business/libertarian part of public policy, and the other emphasized the policy issues dear to the religious right. The latter, was the network of Family Policy Councils affiliated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family. The details have changed since I published that study, but the general trajectory remains the same. Most importantly, these groups are at the forefront of antimarriage equality campaigns nationwide, and their role as fronts for Focus on the Family are not widely understood and that Dobson's organization has active, organizational tentacle in 34 states, in addition to his radio program which is available just about everywhere.

For example, the point group in the recently defeated effort to repeal anti-discrimination laws in Maine, was the FOF affiliate, the Christian Civic League of Maine.

In defeat, the Maine FOF group immediately announced that they will now seek to amend the state constitution to ban marriage equality. When they do, they can draw on the experience of many other FOF-led efforts from around the country. For example, the point group in seeking to get an anti-marriage equality measure on the ballot in Massachusetts, is the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Some already existing local groups grafted onto FOF as state level affiliates, and others were started from scratch. And some groups have come and gone. But whatever their genesis, they are joined at the hip with Focus on the Family, just as the Family Research Council serves as the group's de facto political lobby in Washington, DC. The Family Research Council merged with FOF in 1988, but later decoupled in order to give it more flexibility politically without necessarily reflecting on the Focus on the Family. However, the distinction has always been pretty thin. Among other things, James Dobson has remained on the board of directors all these years.

Similarly, although the FOF states that the State Family Councils "have no corporate or financial relationship with each other or with Focus on the Family," this is disingenuous, since an organization must meet certain criteria to become affiliated with Focus on the Family; and must behave in certain ways in order to maintain it's standing. Some groups have been dropped over the years. Even a casual examination of the web sites of these groups will show, they have similar, although not uniform, structures, procedures, and policy agendas. But all are deeply involved in state politics, and thier activities often include voter mobilization and even distribution of voter guides.

There are currently FOF affiliated state policy councils in 34 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Have you focused on your local Focus on the Family?

[Crossposted at Political Cortex and Talk to Action]

Kickin' Ass in Massachusetts

2005-11-09T05:48:00.000-05:00

Kickin' Ass in Massachusetts is the title of a major political gathering on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, this weekend, Nov.12-13th. The event, sponsored by the UMASS College Democrats, will focus on the economy, health care, public education, the environment -- and the politics of the 2006 elections in the Commonwealth.

The conference is notable because, among other things, it models the way that college democrats can collaborate with Democratic town committees to boost their electoral fortunes.

The conference keynoter will be U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). And the two announced Democratic candidates for governor, Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly, will also be featured.

Here are some Saturday highlights from the full schedule, available on the Web site of the UMASS College Dems.

10:15 -- 11:15 am: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank

11:30 am - 12:30 pm: Massachusetts AG Tom Reilly

12:45 -- 1:45 pm: Candidate for Governor, Deval Patrick

3:30 -- 4:45 pm: State Rep. John W. Scibak, Committee on Health Care Financing

3:30 -- 4:45 pm: State Sen. Stan Rosenberg, Committee on Higher Education

3:30 -- 3:45 pm: Governor’s Councilor Peter Vickery

Download the conference flyer.

The event is also notable because not only does it feature speakers from such organzation as Planned Parenthood, Common Cause, and the United Auto Workers, but is also features MA political bloggers Michael DiChiara, Michael Wilcox, and me.

Here is some of what the UMASS College Dems have to say about the event:

Our College Democrats chapter has been working with our parent organization, the College Democrats of Massachusetts, and the Amherst Town Democratic Committee to organize a Massachusetts-specific policy-oriented Student Activist Conference...[to]... give over 200 students from 36 College Democrats chapters from across the Commonwealth the policy information they need to be effective grassroots activists. The programming at this conference has been designed to help College Activists as they interface with the general public in the cities and towns of Massachusetts to answer the fundamental question of why people should vote Democrat. This policy-oriented conference will complement the Campaign Corps training workshop for College Dems held at Clark University in late October.... Expert panelists in two plenary sessions and several smaller workshops will discuss the issues of tax policy, jobs and the economy,education, and healthcare -- all with a Massachusetts-specific slant.... At least half of Massachusetts College Democrats have not grown up in this state, and so we are arranging a "Massachusetts Politics 101" discussion session. This will give grassroots activists the information about local and statewide political dynamics that they need to be effective as they operate within the Commonwealth. For those students who will go on to work in other states, a Massachusetts Politics panel discussion will serve as an illustrative case study in how strengthening Our Party starts with tenacious involvement in local and state-level politics - from the grassroots up.... the outcomes of local and state-wide campaigns and ballot initiatives have immediate and lasting effects on the nation's political landscape. Come and learn about the fights that need to be taken up and won in Massachusetts. College Democrats from across this state are prepared to offer their insight and energy, their time and their shoe leather to help build a lasting Democratic majority.

[Via Frederick Clarkson.com and Political Cortex]

Anti-Defamation League Denounces Efforts to "Christianize America"

2005-11-08T01:40:00.000-05:00

In recent weeks, several leaders of major American institutions have spoken-out against the Christian Right. First up was Rev. John Thomas president of the United Church of Christ, a mainline protestant denomination.

Thomas denounced groups "within and beyond the UCC" that are "intent on disrupting and destroying our life together."

"Groups like the Evangelical Association of Reformed, Christian and Congregational Churches and the Biblical Witness Fellowship are increasingly being exposed even as they are increasingly aggressive," Thomas said. "Their relationship to the right-wing Institute for Religion and Democracy and its long-term agenda of silencing a progressive religious voice while enlisting the church in an unholy alliance with right-wing politics is now longer deniable. United Church of Christ folk like to be 'nice,' to be hospitable. But, to play with a verse of scripture just a bit, we doves innocently entertain these serpents in our midst at our own peril."

Then, up stepped Dr. Hunter Rawlings interim president of Cornell University, who used his state of the university address to rally the univeristy to come to terms with the problem of the "intelligent design" movement, which he described as "a subjective concept.... a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea. It is neither clearly identified as a proposition of faith nor supported by other rationally based arguments."

Rawlings' went on to quote from a letter written by university founder Ezra Cornell in which he warned "that the principal danger, and I say almost the only danger I see in the future to be encountered by the friends of education, and by all lovers of true liberty is that which may arise from sectarian strife. From these halls, sectarianism must be forever excluded, all students must be left free to worship God, as their conscience shall dictate, and all persons of any creed or all creeds must find free and easy access, and a hearty and equal welcome, to the educational facilities possessed by the Cornell University.....".

This week, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, addressing an ADL conference, spoke out against efforts to "Christianize America."

The Isreali newspaper Ha'aretz, reported that the ADL "has in the past spearheaded campaigns against religious preachers and Christian elements deemed unusually extreme. But this is the first all-out media assault by an ADL head on the U.S. Christian establishment."

"Today we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before," Foxman said. "Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!" he said.

Foxman proceeded to describe the process and to name names: "Major players include Focus On Family. Alliance Defense Fund, the American Family Association, Family Research Council and more. They and other groups have established new organizations and church-based networks, and built infrastructure throughout the country designed to promote traditional Christian values."

The ADL continued the "media assault" with a press release today stating that the curriculum for teaching the Bible in the public schools being promoted by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, is unacceptable, because it "advocates the acceptance of one faith tradition's interpretation of the Bible over another."

"This wholly inappropriate curriculum blatantly crosses the line by teaching fundamental Protestant doctrine," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "The text relies solely upon the King James Version of the Bible and hews to a fundamentalist reading, especially of New Testament passages. This is the primary flaw in the curriculum – that it advocates the acceptance of one faith tradition's interpretation of the Bible over another."

According to ADL, the King James Version is the least faithful one to the original Biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek.

There are acceptable resources available for teaching the Bible in public schools. For example, the newly published textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence" from the Bible Literacy Project is designed to meet the standards for teaching the Bible in public schools with one semester on the Hebrew Scriptures and one on the New Testament.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that although public schools may not teach religion, they may teach about religion in a secular context. The Bible may be taught in a public school, but only for its historical, cultural or literary value and never in a devotional, celebratory or doctrinal manner, or in such a way that encourages acceptance of the Bible as a religious document. If a school district chooses to teach the Bible in this context, the adopted curriculum must be balanced and pluralistic in nature and the curriculum should not advocate one particular religion, interpretation or translation over another."

(For its part, Focus on the Family, one of the leading Christian right organizations, thinks the curriculum "should be in all public schools," although it promotes creationism, Christian nationalism, and has generated national controvery.)

It is encouraging that more and more important leaders in American public life are rising to meet the urgent challenge of our times: an antidemocratic movement, bent on religious supremacy and creeping theocracy at all levels of government, and in all areas of life. Let's encourage more leaders to follow the lead of Foxman, Rawlings and Thomas.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action, Political Cortex, and DefCon]

A Poster Boy for the GOP Culture of Corruption?

2005-11-03T21:35:00.000-05:00

The GOP Mayor of Chicopee, Massachusetts has been arrested and charged with extorting big campaign contributions from local businessmen in exchange for favorable treatment.

Richard Goyette, 36, a Republican running for a second term, dropped out of the race today, all but guaranteeing that liberal Democrat Michael Bissonette will win the election on November 8th. Goyette says he plans to serve out the rest of his term. City Councilors have called on him to resign. Chicopee is a city of about 50,000 people located just north of Springfield.

The Associated Press reported

"The alleged conduct of Mr. Goyette is an unconscionable breach of the public trust, and only serves to undermine citizens' confidence," U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan said at a news conference. "Citizens rightfully expect public officials to uphold the best interests of all constituents without expecting cash contributions to do their job."

An FBI affidavit unsealed Tuesday describes a pair of surveillance videos, both shot Sept. 2, that allegedly show Goyette accepting $5,000 cash contributions from two business owners who agreed to cooperate in the investigation.

One witness -- identified by investigators as "Concerned Citizen 2" -- is the owner of a towing company who said he gave Goyette the money to keep his contract with the city. The man said he gave $2,500 to Goyette's 2003 campaign in hopes of securing the contract, investigators said.

"It became clear that Goyette expected to receive substantial campaign contributions from towing companies that did business with the city of Chicopee," FBI Special Agent Susan Kossler said in her sworn testimony.

On the video, according to affidavit, when the towing company owner takes the cash from his desk drawer, Goyette says, "What, no envelope?"

On the same day, Goyette went to the office of a Chicopee developer -- dubbed "Concerned Citizen 4" -- and allegedly pocketed another $5,000 in exchange for a guarantee that problems with the man's development project would be smoothed over. That exchange also was videotaped, the FBI said.

The Fray has much more -- including a grainy still from the FBI surveillance video that the FBI says shows Goyette stuffing an envelope with the five large he had just extorted from a developer, into his pocket.

[Crossposted at Political Cortex].

Will Massachusetts End Gerrymandering?

2005-11-03T13:17:00.000-05:00

Can we take the drawing of Massachusetts legislative districts out of the smoke-filled room -- where they can be drawn in the light of day by people who will try to draw them fairly and in public? We can if we can get the Fair Districts inititative petition on the ballot. But organizers are only half way to thier goal of 100,000 petition signatures. They actually need about 65,000 valid sigs, but old hands say they need 100 to get 65. I have written an updated version of a post I did here a week or so ago, at Political Cortex. Check it out to find out how you can help in the home stretch.

Jimmy Carter Takes on the Christian Right

2005-11-02T20:40:00.000-05:00

"Blurring the line between church and state threatens civil liberties and privacy, says former President Jimmy Carter. That's the case he makes in his new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, which draws on Carter's experiences as a president and a Christian."

The above is a blurb promoting an interview on Fresh Air, with Terry Gross, on the web site of National Public Radio.

In the book he writes:

Nowadays, the Washington scene is completely different, with almost every issue decided on a strictly partisan basis. Probing public debate on key legislative decisions is almost a thing of the past. Basic agreements are made between lobbyists and legislative leaders, often within closed party caucuses where rigid discipline is paramount. Even personal courtesies, which had been especially cherished in the U.S. Senate, are no longer considered to be sacrosanct. This deterioration in harmony, cooperation, and collegiality in the Congress is, at least in part, a result of the rise of fundamentalist tendencies and their religious and political impact.

Fortunately, this degree of rigidity and confrontation has not yet taken hold among the general public.

Carter is right. But it will take some effort to learn how to engage in constructive conversation, and to learn with whom it is worth having such conversations and with whom it is not. I am not going to try to lay out a plan on this short essay. But rather to stake out the ground that it is not only possible, but necessary.

That's why is wrong to write off, as some do, all conservative Christians as beyond all conversation and all reason. I find the routine derisive language used by many against those with whom they disagree on matters of religion to be incompatible with the values of tolerance and equality to which progressives have historically been all about. It borders on religious bigotry -- and all too often falls well over the line.

Jimmy Carter is a conservative Democrat. He is also an evangelical Christian. His faith is an important to his identity. He is also hero of civil and human rights. He supports the separation of church and state. And he opposes the fundamentalist enforcers who have taken over the Southern Baptist Convention. He left the SBC out of principle. He opposes, among other things, their insistence on the subordination of women, and the banning of women from positions of leadership in the denomination.

Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates, has been a leader among progressives in articulating why the demonization of evangelicals and religious conservatives is politically ineffective at best; stupidly counterproductive at worst.

"Most Christian evangelicals," he wrote at Talk to Action recently, "are not part of the Christian Right. I know from talking with evangelicals and fundamentalists across the country that they are offended by the rhetoric from some liberal and Democratic Party leaders who do not seem to be able to talk about religion without chewing on their foot.

I have this fantasy about kidnapping a busload of liberal inside-the-beltway pundits and driving them to some town in Middle America where they have to learn how to talk to voters who think that going to a church, or synagogue, or mosque or other place of worship is a normal part of life. The pundits won’t be given a ticket back to Dupont Circle until they don't flinch when someone says words like "faith," "prayer," or "blessing."

I suspect some will have to walk back to the Potomac."

[Crossposted at Political Cortex and Talk to Action.]

My Debut at Political Cortex

2005-11-01T13:03:00.000-05:00

Maybe I was Born to Blog

Is Alito the Dream Candidate of the Religious Right?

2005-11-01T12:42:00.000-05:00

DefCon, (the Campaign to Defend the Consitution)thinks so. Here is part of an e-mail they sent around about Sumpreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this morning.

What the religious right wants, the religious right gets.

At least that was message sent yesterday by the Bush Administration in nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

After conservative Christians rallied to oppose Harriet Miers, President Bush caved and withdrew her nomination. In her place, he has nominated a darling of the religious right. According to Jay Sekulow, head of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, on abortion Alito is "just fantastic." Sekulow went on, "you look at school prayer cases.... he has consistently ruled in our position."

Sekulow was not the only religious right leader rushing to support Alito. Within hours, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins and James Dobson all rallied to Alito's defense in national media.

Robertson: "I think this is a grand slam home run."

Dobson: "We are extremely pleased."

Schlafly: "Alito has a terribly impressive record."

Bauer: "If Harry Reid's disappointed, I think that's good news for us."

Alito's dedication to the religious right's agenda is no secret. Over the years, he has voted to restrict a woman's right to choose, to support the public display of religious symbols, and to oppose the longstanding "Lemon Test" (for decades the legal standard for upholding the separation of church and state).

As Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins told ABC, "To think that we're going to reverse the liberal activist court without a fight is wrong. There's going to be a fight. There needs to be a fight. We are ready to rumble."

Political Cortex

2005-10-31T13:00:00.000-05:00

Please welcome Political Cortex to the blogosphere! Months in the making, it has just launched today. It is a national site for progressive politics and journalism -- with many cool new features you won't see anywhere else. I am honored to report that I will be a front page poster. Look for me on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I will cross-post some things from this site, but there will also be stuff I write just for Cortex. At least that's the way I am thinking of it right now. Comments are always welcome here, but if you are interested in discussion, Cortex is the place to have it.

Here is some of what founder Tom Ball wrote in his inaugural post this morning:

3... 2... 1... Blastoff!

Months in the making. Blood. Sweat. Tears.

But now we’re here and we are ready to ROCK!

But who are we? We’re Al Rodgers, ColdFusion04, Devilstower, Hermod, Sdf, Bill Hare, Drew Johnston, mcjoan, SusanG, Bob Kendall, Frederick Clarkson, NYBri, Btyarbro, Georgia10, S. M. Dixon, Myself, and the soon-to-be Cortex community!

Together we will fight against the forces of evil, and injustice and for the progressive ideals of Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Allen, and Franklin.

These men founded a Progressive Nation. They were America's Founding Fathers -- a group of the staunchest progressives in our nation's history -- men of enlightenment, ardent supporters of church/state separation with a fervent passion for decentralization of power and freedom of expression. So too were the founding documents they authored and the principles by which they acted.

In recent years, many Americans have come to forget these facts. Political Cortex is here to remind them.

But we can't do it alone. This will require the unified voice of millions. And as that voice grows throughout the web and across the nation, the Cortex will be here to offer new light and pioneering ways to augment that collective voice.

To start, we've created this community as a Democracy – where "One person - One Vote" actually applies. Where the Cortex community takes center stage on the front page garnering equal time and space with the Founding Cortex writers. And where higher thought and mutual respect will combine with a culture of independent, investigative journalism to present a new paradigm in online netroots media.

And if you're wondering what makes us different from all the others, join the crowd. It was a primary consideration when we put this project together.

The good news is that we think we've differentiated ourselves in a way that will eventually augment and enhance the effectiveness of the growing voice of the progressive web.

First, we've implemented a "Blog Democracy" via a pioneering community editing and voting process unique to the political blogosphere.

Next, we've incorporated new and original features such as Keyword Tags, advanced diary voting, and "Quick Posting".

Also, we've removed the community from the periphery and placed it center-stage on the front page.

And finally, we hope to foster a culture of journalistic Independence that inspires a new generation of bold truth-seekers.

Right now, all that’s just a lot of hot air. It's time to put the proverbial money where our mouth is and make it happen. All it takes is a bit of passion, desire, and motivation -- Throw in a half ton of moxie, and your nearly there. But believe me, we assert these things with the greatest humility.

Oh, we truly believe it can be done -- But we can’t do it without you. We need to work together to turn vision into reality.

So please join us by creating a free Cortex Account right now! It only takes a few seconds, but the benefits will last a lifetime :)

Massachusetts Fair Districts Initiative Petition

2005-10-26T04:04:00.000-04:00

If we can collect enough signatures, there will be an initiative on the Massachusetts ballot in 2008 that will take the drawing legislative districts out of the smoke filled room -- where they can be drawn in the light of day by an independent commission. Sound good? It is.

It's called the Fair Districts initiative petition. Currently, election districts are drawn by the legislature -- which has a poor record of drawing districts fairly. Deval Patrick, who was Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton Administration, said in endorsing the initiative: "In a healthy democracy the voters choose their representatives. In the system we have, the reps choose the voters. That's upside down."

Other endorsers of the initiative include fellow leading Democrats Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, Steve Grossman, Scott Harshbarger, Robert Reich, Tom Reilly, and Warren Tolman -- as well as Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Lt. Governor Kerry Healey -- and many other political, academic and legislative leaders, as well as such newspapers as The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, and The Springfield Republican.

The campaign is being spearheaded by Common Cause, and, writes Leo Maley who is coordinating the participation of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, it is

endorsed by many leading good government, civil rights, and progressive political organizations including PDM, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Mass Voters for Fair Elections, Mass PIRG, and Clean Water Action, among others.... What will the initiative accomplish? It will end "gerrymandering," the political manipulation of electoral districts to dampen political competition and ensure easy reelection for those who control the process.

What has gerrymandering meant for Massachusetts? Unfair political gain. Lack of electoral competition. Cronyism. Poor community representation. Disenfranchisement of minorities. Payback for disfavored rank-and-file legislators-- especially progressive legislators... Eleven other states draw their districts through independent commissions with significant success. The Fair Districts initiative petition takes the best practices from several states and adapts them to our unique political climate.

While PDM is helping gather signatures, Common Cause has comprehensive information on its web site, including downloadable copies of the petition.

With all of the support for this landmark electoral reform measure, what could go wrong? It's simple. If citizens -- that means us -- are unable to get enough valid petitions signatures by the deadline, the measure will not appear on the ballot. Organizers say they need 100,000.

Please mail your petitions to: Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
Campaign Office
256 North Pleasant Street, Suite #1
Amherst, MA 01002

Please send in whatever number you have before November 15th.

To find out how you can help, write to Leo Maley, leomaley3@hotmail.com

Taking Leadership in Response to the Religious Right

2005-10-24T21:45:00.000-04:00

The Religious Right rose to power while most of the nation remained somnambulant. Books and articles were written; film documentaries broadcast; and activist and scholarly seminars and conferences held -- but most of our leading institutions have had little to no response. Fortunately, this is changing. Leaders of major religious and secular institutions are beginning to speak out -- and to lead their institutions into the central struggles of our time.

Last week Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, spoke out against the attacks on the mainline churches -- including his own. This week, Dr. Hunter Rawlings, interim president of Cornell University called on the Cornell community to address the "invasion of science by intelligent design."

According to an account of his speech by Susan Lang of Cornell news service, Rawlings' call came in his first "State of the University" address since becoming interim president in June.

Read on. Meet Hunter Rawlings: professor of classics; hero of constitutional democracy; and a role model for how university leaders can and must respond in this era of theocratic creep in American public life. Here is an excerpt of Lang's report.

Rawlings said, "I.D. [intelligent design] is not valid as science... I.D. is a subjective concept.... a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea. It is neither clearly identified as a proposition of faith nor supported by other rationally based arguments." Advocates of I.D. voice a creationist argument that some features of the natural world are so "irreducibly complex" that they must have required a creator, or an "intelligent designer."

I.D. is, he said, "a matter of great significance to Cornell and to this country as a whole ... a matter ... so urgent that I felt it imperative to take it on for this State of the University Address." The packed auditorium gave Rawlings a lengthy standing ovation at the conclusion of his address.

"I am convinced that the political movement seeking to inject religion into state policy and our schools is serious enough to require our collective time and attention," he said. As such, he asked that Cornell's three task forces -- on the life sciences, on digital information and on sustainability -- consider how to confront such questions as "how to separate information from knowledge and knowledge from ideology; how to understand and address the ethical dilemmas and anxieties that scientific discovery has produced; and how to assess the influence of secular humanism on culture and society."

He said that Cornell, which some refer to as the world's land-grant university, is in a unique position to bring humanists, social scientists and scientists together to "venture outside the campus to help the American public sort through these complex issues. I ask them to help a wide audience understand what kinds of theories, arguments and conclusions deserve a place in the academy -- and why it isn't always a good idea to 'teach the controversies.' When professors tend only to their own disciplinary gardens, public discourse is seriously undernourished," he said.

In his address, Rawlings first reviewed how the I.D. issue is playing out across the country, with disputes about evolution making news in at least 20 states and numerous school districts. He then recounted the controversy historically, with Darwin publishing his groundbreaking book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," in 1860; the 1925 Scopes trial that deterred anti-evolution legislation pending in 16 states at the time; and the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that ruled as invalid Louisiana's "Creationism Act" that would have forbade teaching evolution in public schools. Now the controversy is back full throttle in a highly polarized nation, Rawlings said, challenging again what is taught in schools and universities.

Rawlings then reviewed how Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White, Cornell's first president, were definitive about the issue when they created the first "American" university. Rawlings quoted White as writing that the institution "should be under the control of no political party and of no single religious sect." Rawlings then quoted from a letter Ezra Cornell had placed in Sage Hall's cornerstone in 1873, and unearthed just a few years ago...."

Rawlings' quote from Ezra Cornell's letter well summarizes the role of religion in a secular institution and a secular society. Cornell warned "that the principal danger, and I say almost the only danger I see in the future to be encountered by the friends of education, and by all lovers of true liberty is that which may arise from sectarian strife. From these halls, sectarianism must be forever excluded, all students must be left free to worship God, as their conscience shall dictate, and all persons of any creed or all creeds must find free and easy access, and a hearty and equal welcome, to the educational facilities possessed by the Cornell University....."

A Clue about Mitt Romney's Plans?

2005-10-20T00:38:00.000-04:00

I came across a Google ad on a blog site -- and I could not resist the urge to click. I don't ususally click on ads. But someone was selling Mitt Romney for President stuff.

Being from Massachusetts where we are all wondering about Governor Romney's plans ... well, I had to know: Was it a clue?

Nope.

It turns out that this outfit has their bases covered. They have also produced identically designed paraphernalia for Rudy Guiliani, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Bill Owens, Colin Powell, Bill Frist, and "Arnold" .

Of course, since this is also a far-right har-har site -- don't be shocked or surprised to see the Kerry for President of France thong.

(Want freedom fries with that?)

On closer inspection, there are many amusing "pro-Bush, Pro GOP" items you may also enjoy. Such as the I Love Bush Thong. There is also a Merry Christmas thong, featuring a photo of a grinning George Bush with a Santa hat on.

But just case the White House scandals knock you out of the umm, Christmas spirit, not to worry. There are thongs featuring all of the GOP presidential possibilities -- except Chuck Hagel and Roy Moore.

There is a 30 day money back guarantee too -- just in case your favorite GOP dream candidate doesn't work out.

Last Call for Hot NYC Conference on Dominionism

2005-10-19T18:10:00.000-04:00

Some of the best of those who think and write about the Religious Right are convening at the graduate school of the City University of New York this weekend. The occasion is a conference jointly sponsored by CUNY and the New York Open Center It is a rare opportunity to listen to and interact with these exceptionally thoughtful and well informed people. I am honored to be included among them.

Dominionism, Political Power & the Theocratic Right

Dominionism is an influential form of fundamentalist religion that believes that in order to fulfill biblical prophecy, "godly Christians" must take control of the levers of political and judicial power in America in the near future.... Just how has this religious ideology gained influence in Congress, American political culture, and in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East and on the environment? What can be done to alert concerned citizens to the theocratic impulse growing in their midst? The goal of this seminar is to examine the power and influence of a religious and political movement that questions the separation of church and state, and that aims to establish a biblical society governed by biblical laws.

Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates; co-author, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort; Frederick Clarkson, author, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy; Michelle Goldberg, senior writer, Salon.com, Esther Kaplan, author, With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House. Chris Hedges, former New York Times reporter and author of Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America; Craig Unger, journalist and author whose journey to the Middle East with Tim LaHaye is the subject of a forthcoming article in Vanity Fair.

Friday October 21 7:30-9:30pm & Saturday Oct. 22 10am-6pm $85; $50 students

Friday October 21 7:30-9:30pm $15

Saturday October 22 10am-6pm $75

Click here to register.

Patrick Launches Campaign with Labor in Pittsfield

2005-10-17T18:05:00.000-04:00

Deval Patrick kicked-off his first official campaign tour on Sunday at the annual Labor-Legislative Breakfast of the Berkshire Central Labor Council. By the accounts coming in so far -- it was a roaring success.

The Berkshire Eagle reported:

Deval Patrick says Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been nothing more than a "recreational governor" during his time in office, using the state's money to travel the country in hopes of making a run at the presidency in 2008.

Patrick, speaking to a crowd of about 250 at the 20th-annual labor-legislative breakfast at Sons of Italy Itam Lodge 564 yesterday morning, fired verbal salvos at Romney and spoke about his own political aspirations to run for the governor's seat next year as a Democrat.

"(Romney) was going to build job opportunities in Massachusetts, but what he's done is gone all over the country on our dime," Patrick said.

A former NAACP and Clinton administration lawyer, Patrick, gave a stirring speech that elicited a standing ovation. He has not officially announced his run for office, but Suzanne Bump, Patrick's deputy political director, said he will do that today in Pittsfield when he makes two public appearances.

Well, OK. But what are bloggers saying about the event?

The headline at MargeBlog reads: Deval Patrick Wows Them in Pittsfield

Walk In Brain writes: "If Patrick can govern a tenth as well as he can speak, Massachusetts would be in capable hands. You can officially move this blogger from 'undecided' to firmly into the Deval Patrick camp."

President of UCC Says Rightist Groups "intent" on "destroying our life together" as a Church [Updated]

2005-10-16T13:14:00.000-04:00

Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ acknowledged on Friday what mainline protestant church leaders have been reluctant to address for two decades: the rightist Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and allied groups are seeking to undermine if not destroy the mainline Christian churches in the United States.

The conservative movement and parts of the corporate sector have loathed the rise of the social gospel in the mainline churches for a century. They have loathed the social justice traditions that were catalysts for the civil rights movement, women's rights, and principled opposition to the excesses of American foreign policy from Vietnam to Central America. It was the latter that led to the formation of the IRD as a hub of antichurch organizing. Since then, IRD-affiliated "renewal" groups have been at the center of nearly every controversy in mainline Christianity -- most recently, but certainly not exclusively, issues of gay and lesbian equality in church and public life.

Thomas spoke, according to United Church News about groups "within and beyond the UCC" that are "intent on disrupting and destroying our life together."

"Groups like the Evangelical Association of Reformed, Christian and Congregational Churches and the Biblical Witness Fellowship are increasingly being exposed even as they are increasingly aggressive," Thomas said. "Their relationship to the right-wing Instit ute for Religion and Democracy and its long-term agenda of silencing a progressive religious voice while enlisting the church in an unholy alliance with right-wing politics is now longer deniable. United Church of Christ folk like to be 'nice,' to be hospitable. But, to play with a verse of scripture just a bit, we doves innocently entertain these serpents in our midst at our own peril."

UCC seminarian and blogger Chuck Currie has more over at Stree t Prophets. Currie has written about the IRD-affiliated Biblical Witness Fellowship in the past, as have I.

Last year, the IRD and its Association for Church Renewal, (of which the BWT is a member) attacked the UCC for its warmhearted TV ads that had been rejected by the TV networks as "too controversial."

Last summer when the UCC's General Synod endorsed same sex marriage, the Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWT) went ballistic and implied that the UCC is no longer a Christian denomination. Previously, it had called for the resignation of John Thomas.

All of the major denominations as well as the National Council of Churches have been affected by this well-funded, and sustained campaign of attrition over the past two decades.

IRD has received substantial funding and direction over the years, from what some might consider the first couple of theocratic philanthropy, Howard and Roberta Ahmanson who were profiled by journalist Max Blumenthal for Salon.com last year. This article is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand what John Thomas is talking about.

The Ahmansons have reportedly contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to IRD, on whose board Roberta Ahmanson sits. The institute, Blumenfeld reported, has a

"Reforming America's Churches Project, which aims to 'restructure the permanent governing structure' of 'theologically flawed' mainline churches like the Episcopal Church in order to 'discredit and diminish the Religious Left's influence.' This has translated into a three-pronged assault on mainline Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal churches. With a staff of media-savvy research specialists, the institute is able to ply both the religious and mainstream media, exploiting divisive social issues within the churches."

It is a good thing that the courageous leader of a major denomination has publicly acknowledged that his denomination is under attack by politically motivated agencies. I hope the UCC and all of the mainline denominations will begin to take a more forceful posture in relation to groups who have abused their standing in tolerant and welcoming communities in order to sew division and discord.

Changing the Light Bulb

2005-10-15T16:53:00.000-04:00

Sometimes getting Democrats, (and progressives, moderate Republicans, libertarians and so on) to change how they think about and respond to the religious right is like the old light bulb joke:

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

Just one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

We have been seeing encouraging signs for some time that we really do want to change -- but change can be hard, and it can take time, and well, drop down on the priorities list. Indeed, it can mean acquiring new and seemingly strange areas of knowledge, and then of course, we might have to consider changing long-cherished ways of doing politics.

But given that the Religious right as a political movement has been one of the most powerful factions in American politics for some time, and their candidates are winning elections for public office at all levels of government in ways that everyone would have thought impossible a generation ago, maybe we oughtta really, seriously, you know... change the light bulb?

Here is a beginning of a discussion of one interesting but particularly challenging pieces of the puzzle. One of the harder things for most of us, is figuring out what to make of some evangelical notions of the End Times.

The Left Behind series of novels and movies has made the evangelical theology of "premillennial dispensationalism" a big national and even international matter. This is actually not a new issue. During the presidential election of 1984, Ronald Reagan was asked about several statements he had made regarding his apparent belief that we were living in Biblically prophesized "end times." People were concerned about whether certain interpretations of Biblical prophesy might be driving U.S. foreign policy. (I don't think this was the case, but it was a fair concern.) This question came from a reporter during a nationally televised debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Reagan replied, accurately, that Jesus himself had said only his Father knows the time of his return. That pretty much settled the matter as a public issue -- until LaHaye's novels came along. Many commentators raise the same concerns about the apocalypse today -- often in apocalyptic terms. But these writings often way overstate the nature of the beliefs of most people, and makes trying to understand what various Christian sects believe about the biblical book of Revelation, and what it means for ordinary people, additionally baffling. Fortunately Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, MA is especially good at explaining it in useful ways to non-evangelical audiences. He has a post about it today on Talk to Action, crossposted at DefCon.

I am not going to go into it in any detail, rather commend this short, but probably provocative essay for your thoughtful consideration. Berlet has a point that goes beyond the details of the theology of Tim LaHaye. (There are books and articles for coming up to speed on that stuff). For years Berlet has argued that Democrats and progressives can compete for the white evangelical vote -- but they have to not only want to do it, but they have to learn how. He suggests that one aspect is learning enough about what they believe in order to be able to address their concerns and not behave in an offensive manner -- just as we would anyone else. The temptation to ridicule what one does not understand is understandable, but it is not necessarily smart politics.

"Because the leaders of the Religious Right have mobilized such a large voter base," he writes, "they regularly have meetings with powerful political leaders, including the President. Today the Religious Right plays a major role in shaping foreign and domestic policies.

We can change this situation. The Religious Right does not speak for all Christians or even all evangelicals. The leaders of the Religious Right sometimes argue for policy positions that make their own followers uncomfortable. In a constitutional democracy, the ideal path for the nation is always open to debate; and the idea of God is too big for small minds to shackle. If we want to defend the Constitution, we must learn the religious beliefs of those evangelicals who dominate the Religious Right, treat them respectfully, and yet engage them in a critical public conversation over the appropriate boundaries for civic political debate set by the founders and framers of our nation.

Berlet's optimism is hard-headed. It is based not only on his scholarship and his commitment to a progressive politics, but his real-world experience of engagement with the kinds of people he is writing about. I think what is especially helpful about Berlet's approach is that he reframes the entire matter in the best George Lakoff sense of the word. Rather than dwelling on the wonky details of theology, he goes for how we might begin to think about it in useful ways, and find fresh political attitudes in ourselve -- framed in terms of our own values -- to begin a more rational and productive approach to the politics of the occasion. I will add, and I know he would agree, that what he proposes will not work with everyone of the premillenial persuasion. But we should not find that necessarily discouraging. There is nothing that works with all of the people all of the time.

Deval Patrick's First Big Campaign Swing

2005-10-14T17:45:00.000-04:00

Deval Patrick has crafted a credible campaign for governor of Massachusetts from nothing in six months. He has steadily built momentum, rather than pandering to the Conventional Wisdom.

Patrick has been systematically introducing himself to the electorate and to party activists, and he has been received with warmth and enthusiasm. What's more, he has started to receive public endorsements from national and state political figures, most recently, state Representatives David Sullivan of Fall River and Michael Rodrugues of Westport, according to an article in the Fall River Herald News.

This week marks the official kick off of Patrick's campaign for governor. His very public round of campaign and media appearances begins, (according to the preliminary schedule sent to reporters and bloggers) in Pittsfield on Sunday; Pittsfield, Holyoke and Springfield on Monday; Randolph and Brockton on Tuesday; Lowell and Lawrence on Wednesday; Fall River on Thursday.

After six months energizing grassroots support, strong fundraising, and meeting with voters concerned about health care, education and jobs," the campaign declared in a press release, "Deval Patrick will tour the Commonwealth... to officially announce his candidacy for governor.

Over the past several weeks, Patrick has released key parts of his Moving Massachusetts Forward plan, including health care, education, and economic growth policies for the state. These issues releases follow months of intense grassroots work, which has brought to the campaign over 2,000 active volunteers, who are using a state-of-the-art website designed to meet the needs of the volunteer base.

Starting October 16th, Patrick is traveling across the state visiting the sites and people that relate to the heart of his Moving Massachusetts Forward plan. His stops will include a tour of the former GE plant that now houses a business park in Pittsfield, a conversation with students at American International College in Springfield, and a tour of the women’s programs at the YWCA of Greater Lawrence. At each of these events, Patrick will talk about his reasons for running and about his Moving Massachusetts Forward plan.

As I wrote recently, it's too early to conclude very much from the polls, activities, and fundraising of the candidates. We have eleven months to go -- a political eon -- before any votes are actually counted. But to those paying attention to the development of the Deval Patrick campaign -- and the candidate -- I think this week will be a bench mark.

Bush Seeking to Revive Religious Test for Public Office?

2005-10-12T13:57:00.000-04:00

The Christian Right of the 18th century didn't like the U.S. Constitution because it did not declare that the U.S. a Christian nation. Not only that, but the Consitution explicitly banned religious tests for public office in Article Six. This set in motion of the disestablishment of the official churches in the colonies that had mostly functioned as little theocracies -- and made the United States the first nation in the history of the world to be founded on religious equality. But the Christian nationalists have never given up.

Now the Bush administration, way down in the polls and facing a conservative revolt over the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is making at least a gesture in the direction of giving the Christian Right one of its dearest goals: the revival of the religious test for public office.

The New York Times reported this morning: "On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, [religious broadcaster James] Dobson said he discussed Miers with [White House political strategist Karl] Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him 'she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,' but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion."

Later in the day, the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) issued a blistering statement denouncing the apparent White House collaboration with Christian Right leader James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family. "I am deeply troubled by the appearance that the President is applying a religious litmus test for his judicial appointments," said Isaac Kramnick, professor of government at Cornell University. "Such a test violates the Constitutional prohibition on religious tests as a qualification for public office."

"Since 2002," Kramnick continued, "the President has repeatedly said that he will appoint judges who believe that God is the source of our civil rights. The notion of asking judges to acknowledge a source of law other than – and perhaps higher than - the Constitution is unacceptable. It shatters the fundamental premise of our founders that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land."

Later today, an Associated Press story underscored Kramnick's concern: "'People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,' Bush told reporters at the White House. 'Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.'"

"Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination 'just to explain the facts.' He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove."

Meanwhile, according to The Boston Globe, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, speaking to a Republican group in North Carolina recently, warned of the danger of Islamic theocracy in the United States.

While the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism around the world are certainly not to be minimized, someone needs to tell Gov. Romney that the theocratic movement in the United States is not trending Islamic.

The Wave of the Future is Already Here: Interactive Blogging

2005-10-09T03:10:00.000-04:00

Yes, it seems like everyone has a blog these days. Businesses. Newspapers. Dogs. Cats. Candidates for public office. And often, these are worthy of some celebration. But amidst call the hoo ha, I want to call attention to one kind of blog -- interactive blog sites -- where hundreds, even thousands of people post essays and engage in online conversation, debate, political organizing, and the creation of culture. This is one of the most remarkable developments in modern democracy and electronic media. These sites are changing political and media culture faster than anything since cable television. I encourage readers to get involved and to master the mechanics of participation. These skills and the knowledge you aquire of the blogosphere will be coming in very handy. Consider this: It's free. It's going to happen anyway. And the only question is whether you will be directly engaged in this remarkable trend sooner or later.

Here are a few of the trend setters:

The Daily Kos has enormous traffic and is playing a central role in the national political conversation, and in some areas of issue and candidate advocacy. Recently remarkable discussions have sprung forth as a result of posts by Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Louise Slaughter, and Rep. John Conyers, among others. Their posts appeared along side those of rank-and-file, and usually anonymous writers. This is but one example of the way in which interactive blogging is by far the most democratic media in the U.S.

I am also a fan of Booman Tribune -- it doesn't attract the big names, but the conversation is less focused on the Democratic Party; and similarly, My Left Wing, is the Left Coastish site started by Mary Scott O'Connor. It's lively, irreverent, reliably progressive.

Pastordan's new site, Street Prophets is a spin-off of The Daily Kos. It brings a decidedly progressive slant to discussions of religion and politics. Its like nothing else out there, and I highly recommend it.

A site that has been slowly coming along is e Pluribus Media -- an outgrowth of the exciting citizen journalist movement that helped expose fake White House reporter Jeff Gannon.

And there are two more big interactive blogs that are still in the works and whose launches seem imminent -- a few weeks in both cases. (But I have been wrong before! These things take longer than one might think.)

Political Cortex will bring a number of innovations to the world of interactive blogging, and feature the next generation of political bloggers. You can sign up for the mailing list to be notified of the launch. Or if you are a regular reader of this blog, you can be sure I will announce it here whent he time comes.

Finally, my baby, Talk to Action is inching along. I can promise you a slate of excellent writers -- some of them brand new to the blogosphere. Unlike the sites listed above in which pretty much any and all subjects are appropriate, and the conversations can be kind of a free for all -- we are headed in the other direction. We want to have a more focused conversation about the religious right and what to do about it. Of course, even that can be a pretty wide-ranging discussion. You can still visit our temporary site where some of us have been posting while we ramp-up the fully interactive national site.

John Danforth & the Christian Right

2005-10-06T23:56:00.000-04:00

Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, former GOP Senator-- and Episcopal priest -- John Danforth is at it again.

According to a story running on Religion News Service, "Since publishing two confrontational op-ed pieces in The New York Times earlier this year, Danforth has accepted a series of invitations to take his provocative questions on the road. This fall, he's a panelist at Notre Dame, a guest preacher at Harvard and Yale, and a featured speaker for Roman Catholic and Episcopal groups in Washington. Danforth is on a speaking tour denouncing the "divisiveness" of the Christian Right."

"I've been away from (the Senate) for more than 10 years," he said recently at the Memorial church at Harvard University, "and I see politics from a distance. And I'm appalled by what I see.... Right there in the midst of all the partisanship, in the midst of all the nastiness, right there with their wedge issues and litmus tests and extreme rhetoric, right there as the most divisive force in American life, are my fellow Christians."

As encouraging as it is to hear Danforth speaking out, his words are unlikely to have much effect. The power of the Christian Right is not in the divisiveness of their rhetoric, although that is a factor. It is in the political power they have attained -- largely through the effectiveness of their political organizing. What Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson say now is little different, and no more divisive, than what they were saying 20 years ago when Danforth was in the U.S. Senate and not (to my knowledge) speaking out. Since that time, the Christian Right has become the best organized faction in American politics -- and one of the most powerful.

As someone who has been writing and speaking about this subject for almost 25 years, I want to underscore that as important as issues of language are, they are not as important -- not nearly as important -- as issues of power.

I'd like to hear what John Danforth thinks should be done about those.

How to Evaluate the MA Governor's Race: Not by Polls Alone

2005-10-06T06:41:00.000-04:00

You know how it is with us political junkies. We are like gamblers looking for the hot tip at the track; analyzing every angle -- and sometimes finding more meaning than perhaps is warranted. I think that's what happened to David over at Blue Mass Group when he drew stronger conclusions from a poll than the political circumstances really support. David focuses on a UMASS poll of 403 registered voters that showed, among other things, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick's name recognition is significantly lower than the other candidates.

"The percentage of voters who don't know enough about him to answer the favorable/unfavorable question remains astronomical at 64%," he writes; "he is the only Democrat who loses in a hypothetical race to Romney; and he barely beats Kerry Healey with a "don't know" number so high for that race that the result seems meaningless."

He concludes: "For a while, it was fine for Patrick to say that he is a relative unknown, that he hasn't been involved in MA politics before, and that therefore people need some time to get to know him. But with recent reports of his campaign's financial difficulties and with little apparent movement in his poll numbers, it seems fair to start wondering aloud whether his campaign is gaining any traction outside the small circle of activist/progressive types who are the core of his campaign."

Since I am a known Patrick supporter and arguably one of those "types" David refers to, you may be thinking that I will now rejoin with a glass-is-half-full kind of argument. Nope. I don't see a glass that is half- empty or half-full (and I see no reason to do much more than yawn in response to that poll.) But I will, however, adapt the metaphor. I see a steadily filling glass -- and a public thirsty for some real leadership.

Let's look at the issues David raises. There are problems in Patrick's campaign? Well, gosh. First time candidate; brand new organization. It would be a shock if there weren't problems of various sorts. There is plenty of time for Patrick's campaign operation to gel. Good thing he was smart enough to start early enough so these things could get worked out.

Meanwhile, Patrick is raising enough money to field an effective campaign and he really does not have to worry about early polls measured against career polititians like Tom Reilly and Bill Galvin; or for that matter, the sitting Governor and Lt. Governor. Remember Patrick's speech at the Democratic convention? The enthusiasm of party activists at the convention is played out on a smaller scale just about every day around the state. That Reilly and Galvin have wide name recognition seems like the least they could accomplish given their status as statewide elected officials. Aren't they being overly credited for having achieved the inevitable? Will they be effective candidates? Hard to say. I don't recall that Reilly has ever had a tough race. And Galvin is not even a candidate (he got in last time only to drop out early for, well, lack of traction.) But are we surprised that they are polling well against a lousy and increasingly unpopular governor who makes his state the butt of his jokes while testing the waters for president? Come now. That Reilly has amassed a large campaign treasury is impressive; but taken alone is not necessarily the juggernaut its made out to be. In fact from where I sit, Reilly's big campaign kitty -- claws both ways. Indeed the raising of over $3 million, so far, by a sitting Attorney General seems problematic in the face of an electorate that has made it clear that it wants governmental and campaign finance reform. My point here is, that the campaign has barely begun, and the issues that will be central to it, have not yet emerged.

Meanwhile there is plenty of good news for Patrick rolling in. For example, the Swampscott Reporter reports today:

Citing the need for fresh leadership in the governor's office, state Reps. Doug Petersen (D-Marblehead) and John Keenan(D-Salem) have endorsed Deval Patrick for governor. They are two of almost 30 on Beacon Hill supporting Patrick's gubernatorial bid.

"Deval Patrick is running for governor because the challenges facing us require strong, creative leadership," said Keenan. "Deval brings leadership that stands up to the old politics of division and defeatism - the old politics that are getting us nowhere."

Keenan is serving his first term as a state representative for Salem. Before his election, he was the Salem city solicitor and is a former Essex County assistant district attorney.

Petersen is known on Beacon Hill as a champion of the environment and a public health advocate. He is one of the sponsors of the emergency contraception bill recently passed over the governor's veto and is working to strengthen rules on disposing of mercury in the state.

"Deval brings a fresh perspective to this race," said Petersen. "He is a leader seasoned in the federal public sector and private corporate worlds. His thoughtful, problem-solving approach is just what Massachusetts needs."

Robert Reich, who came in a close second in the Democratic primary last time, did not get in until just before the Democratic caucuses. And he was endorsed (if memory serves) by exactly one member of the state legislature -- then-Rep. Pat Jehlen of Somerville. Many elected officials at all levels who might have supported Reich were already committed to other candidates. And progressives were divided among several candidates in the Democratic primary field last time. That is not the case this time. Of course, Bob Reich was much more famous than Deval Patrick when he started out, and that was a huge asset -- one he is using to help Patrick this time. But Patrick is already way ahead of where Reich was when he started -- and its only October. Campaign manager John Walsh told leaders of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) during an endorsement interview, "Give me a couple thousand volunteers and I can beat the money."

Every indication from where I sit -- is that Walsh is getting his volunteers. He is assembling a significant field organization -- much of which will have been working together for a full year by the time of the Democratic primary. The Patrick campaign received a significant boost when he was endorsed by PDM -- an organization that has been building this very kind of field capacity for the past two years, turning neophytes into experienced campaign activists. Doing the hard work of establishing a functioning field organization is not something that will get one instant notice in polls. But a dynamic grassroots field organization can win elections -- as the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) repeatedly proved, the prevailing winds of the Conventional Wisdom, not withstanding.

When I look around for indicators of "traction" in the Patrick campaign, I look at things that I think will build towards a victory in the primary next year -- and so, no, I don't find much signficance in small snapshots of public opinion at this stage. I am confident that given time, the campaign's efforts will be reflected in the polls. Reilly and Galvin have had decades to arrive at wide name recognition. Let's give Patrick a break and not make too much of the polls until, say, around the Democratic caucuses. By then the field will probably be set; Patrick will have been a candidate for nine months; and the media will have started to pay much more attention. Of course, even then, the primary will still be 7 months away.

MA "Political Heavyweights" Endorse Fair Redistricting Proposal

2005-10-04T03:49:00.000-04:00

The Boston Globe reports today:

A bipartisan group of political heavyweights yesterday threw their support behind a proposed ballot initiative that would strip the Legislature of its constitutional power to redraw district lines.

The group, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick, current Republican Party executive director Tim O'Brien, and former governor Michael Dukakis, endorsed a ballot proposal they say would put an end to political gerrymandering and make the process of redrawing 160 House districts and 40 Senate districts more open and fair.

"In a healthy democracy, the voters choose representatives," Patrick said. "In the system we have, the representatives choose the voters. That's upside down."

The Fair Districts Campaign hopes to place the proposal on the 2008 ballot. The group needs 65,825 signatures and the votes of 50 lawmakers this session to advance their proposal to the ballot. Campaign officials said yesterday that they believe they have gathered between 10,000 and 20,000.

Attorney General Thomas Reilly and Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey released statements indicating support.

The proposed constitutional amendment would place redistricting authority in the hands of a seven-member commission.

The initiative is sponsored by Massachusetts Common Cause, which has details of the initiative and how to help the campaign posted on its web site.

Roy Moore's Run for Theocrat-in-Chief of Alabama

2005-10-04T00:37:00.000-04:00

Roy Moore has made it official. He is running for the GOP nomination for governor of Alabama. He may also be launching what could become a storied career as one of the most prominent, if cagily, theocratic politicians in America.

His platform as outlined on his campaign web site, might be best described as theocratic populist. Mr. Moore, as is now well-known, abused the office of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, by secretly commissioning a 2 1/2 ton granite religious monument featuring the Ten Commandments, and installing it in the state court house.

Moore was looking for a showdown in federal court. He got it, and he lost. And when Federal District Judge Myron Thompson ordered him to remove the religious display, Moore refused. Ultimately Mr. Moore was removed from office; his monument was removed from the courthouse; and he is still kicking and screaming about it.

Moore says public officials have the right to "acknowledge God." Well, all Americans have that right. But Moore, (as Judge Thompson made clear and the appellate courts confirmed), had no right to use the state courthouse to display a religious monument. Moore insists to this day that he has the right to do as he pleases and has made the right of public officials to "acknowledge God as the moral foundation of law, liberty and government," a cornerstone of his platform.

If all this were not disturbing enough, Moore's anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-democracy and anti-separation of church and state politics are worthy of national concern. He wants to eviscerate the power of the state legislature by requiring it to meet much less frequently; term-limit legislators; and strengthen the veto power of the governor.

Finally, Moore's politics may be best-viewed in terms of his apparent national ambitions. Scholars are already comparing his style to that of the late George Wallace who as governor of Alabama in the 1960s demagogued high-profile segregationist stands into a run for president -- winning four states of the old confederacy as the candidate of the American Independent Party in 1968.

But for now, Moore still needs to get past incumbent Gov. Bob Riley in the June 2006 GOP primary. Will the Ten Commandments Judge act start to wear a little thin? It could. Last year, John Rowland was forced to resign in disgrace as governor of Connecticut in the face of probable impeachment on corruption charges. Roy Moore is no more entitled to call himself "judge" than John Rowland is entitled to call himself "governor." Yet the unrepentant Mr. Moore's campaign slogan is "Judge Roy Moore for Governor of Alabama."

Indeed, Mr. Moore's major accomplishment as an elected public official was to get thrown out of office for defying the order of a federal judge. His campaign bio, which features a long list of awards from Christian Right groups, may be the single most vainglorious resume in recent American political history. But if anyone can pull off this demagogic stunt of a campaign, it's Roy Moore -- who has a national Christian Right fundraising base, and is the best-known pol in Alabama.

Candidate Moore pledges to return Alabama to the people. But what he is really saying is 'turn Alabama over to me.'

Open Source Progressive Organizing?

2005-10-03T01:29:00.000-04:00

The Rockridge Institute, according to a press release on their web site, has launched an ambitious and innovative initiative they call the "Progressive Manual Project." Rockridge is the insitutional extension of the work of linguist George Lakoff, whose notion of "framing" is an integral part of the current reshaping of progressive Democratic politics. Framing is most famously discussed in his book, Don't Think of An Elephant, which discusses important differences between the worldviews of conservatives and liberals.

Rockridge is trying to help close the think tank gap. The conservative movement has methodically built many such institutions while the liberal left did, well, whatever it was they were doing while the right marched to power.

The Progressive Manual Project will provide a concise summary of core progressive concepts and values. It will show how those concepts and values support a broad range of policy directions spanning environment, education, health care, jobs, security, and other areas. It will provide practical tools, ideas, and suggested language for those working day-to-day to educate the public and build support for the progressive agenda. The project will include:

A multi-chapter printed reference book
A dynamic, interactive on-line resource that we update regularly
A robust support structure to train, support, educate and empower issue advocates and activists across the U.S.

To undertake this project, Rockridge is "borrowing approaches proven in the open source software movement." Rockridge says it will be "collaborating with people who work day-to-day for progressive change" and thereby "validate the ideas as they are developed, and ensure the usefulness and relevance of our written product. This open-source approach distinguishes Rockridge from many think tanks in which the research and writing is done by a small, closed group."

They plan to finish two chapters by next spring. "One will focus on the foundation of ideas from which all progressive policy follows; the other will focus specifically on the environment." After this first phase, they feel they can "ramp up our organizational capability to work on four to six chapters simultaneously. We will release chapters one by one as they are completed."

But then, of course, this thing has to be funded. They say they need $500,000 to complete the first two chapters. In addition to direct contritutions, they are looking for "chapter sponsors" and other ideas.

If You Think the Religious Right is a Problem...

2005-10-01T17:14:00.000-04:00

There are lots of things to be done.

One of the first things to do --- is to learn more about it.

The Christian Right is one of the most successful political movements in American history. Yet people's level of literacy about the subject is often, well, shockingly low. The Christian Right is the dominant faction in the GOP. There are reasons for that. But few seem to know what those reasons are. If we are going to have intelligent conversations about all this, let alone be able to have coherent discussions about what to do, we need to have more people who share a common base of knowledge and the language necessary to have meaningful conversations. After many years, I know that useful knowledge and conversation in this area can be hard to come by.

So here is my up-by-the-bootstraps, do-it-yourself program for coming up to speed: books, magazines, conferences, videos, blogging -- and a radical idea.

Pick any three books: Among general interest books, I will certainly recommend my own. Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy; but also Facing the Wrath by Sara Diamond; The Most Dangerous Man in America and Why the Religious Right is Wrong, both by Robert Boston. Current hot and excellent books are With God on Their Side by Esther Kaplan, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America by Chris Hedges; and The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney. For the academically inclined: Rightwing Populism: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons; Roads to Dominion, by Sara Diamond; and With God on Our Side, by William Martin.

Pick one or both magazines: Church & State; The Public Eye. (Yes, other publications cover the religious right periodically and well. Most recently Harpers has had some important coverage, and an upcoming issue of Mother Jones has good stuff. Max Blumenthal's articles in the The Nation online are not to be missed, nor are Bill Berkowitz columns for Working Assets. But for regular coverage, its the monthly Church & State and the quarterly Public Eye.)

Read Blogs devoted to this subject: Talk to Action, DefCon blog; Dark Christianity, Religious Right Watch, Frederick Clarkson, Chip Berlet, and for more general discussions of politics and religion, Street Prophets.

Attend Conferences: These are, unfortunately, few and far between. The Texas Freedom Network has one going on this weekend. The National Cathedral in Washington, DC has a good looking conference October 13-15 that is mostly about progressive religious values, (which is not really to be confused with learning about the religious right, but there will be some of that). And finally, there is one focused on understanding the Christian Right, sponsored by the Graduate Program at the City Univeristy of New York and the New York Open Center.

Dominionism, Political Power & the Theocratic Right

Dominionism is an influential form of fundamentalist religion that believes that in order to fulfill biblical prophecy, "godly Christians" must take control of the levers of political and judicial power in America in the near future.... Just how has this religious ideology gained influence in Congress, American political culture, and in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East and on the environment? What can be done to alert concerned citizens to the theocratic impulse growing in their midst? The goal of this seminar is to examine the power and influence of a religious and political movement that questions the separation of church and state, and that aims to establish a biblical society governed by biblical laws.

Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates; co-author, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort; Frederick Clarkson, author, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy; Michael Northcott, teaches Christian Ethics, University of Edinburgh, Scotland; author, An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic Religion and American Empire; Esther Kaplan, author, With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House.

Friday October 21 7:30-9:30pm & Saturday Oct. 22 10am-6pm $85; $50 students

Friday October 21 7:30-9:30pm $15

Saturday October 22 10am-6pm $75

Click here to register.

View and Discuss Videos & DVDs: A DVD of highlights from a previous CUNY conference from last April Examining the Agenda of the Religious Far Right is available for $19.95. It features Karen Armstrong, Joan Bokaer, Joseph Hough, Robert Edgar, Hugh Urban, Chip Berlet and Frederick Clarkson. (212) 219-2527 / info@opencenter.org. Theocracy Watch has produced a very useful educational piece which is available on video or DVD. It can be downloaded for free or ordered by mail. Why not get a group of people together for a showing and discussion?

Consider a radical idea: Follow the above program and then do the same thing with religious right sources. Its a good thing to have some direct experiences of the people, books, periodicals and events of the religious right. In fact, I would argue that there is no substitute for it. One of these days, I will write up a beginner's program for how to do this.

But in the meantime, try some or all of the above. Ideally, do them with others, perhaps as a reading and discussion group. I would add that when we launch the scoop-based version of Talk to Action, the above resources will be listed along with others, and whenever there are interesting events, we will announce them -- and of course chew over whatever happens. Many of the people mentioned in this post will be frequent contributors at Talk to Action. You can think of it as a rolling conference on the religious right and what to do about it; how to talk about it; comparing notes on what works, what doesn't, and why. We want to learn lessons from our mistakes and failures. And we will want to hear success stories -- and to celebrate them. And it will be important to have many such celebrations, won't it? As I often say, this is one of the central struggles of our time.

Welcome New MA Political Bloggers!

2005-10-01T02:48:00.000-04:00

Thanks to the ever-vigilant MA political blogger New Blogger Alert System, two new arrivals to the MA political blogosphere have been detected. And here they are:

Idealism without Illusions is written by JumboDem, a student who hails from Somerville. Regarding the recent indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, he searches for the proper response and comes up with "Jerry Garcia, the late leader of the Grateful Dead, used to sing 'there's nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile.' That sounds like a fine strategy by me."

Adam Reilly has a new politics blog, appropriately titled, Talking Politics, sponsored by The Boston Phoenix. Very cool. I expect I'll be a regular reader.

Welcome to the MA political blogosphere JumboDem and Adam. It's a pretty friendly place. Even when we disagree, we smile, smile, smile.

What to Do About the Racist Remarks of William Bennett?

2005-09-30T12:14:00.000-04:00

Sarah Posner has published a well-researched piece at The Gadflyer, about the Salem Communications radio empire that carries a vast array of conservative programming. Here is an excerpt:

"Michigan Democrat John Conyers has written a letter to the Salem Radio Network," writes Posner, "requesting that it suspend Bill Bennett's program for his outrageous remarks that '[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."' But who owns Salem, and what do you think they're going to do about Bennett?"

"Salem Radio Network's parent company is Salem Communications, a publicly traded media company which openly claims its programming is from a conservative Christian perspective. The company owns over 100 radio stations in major metropolitan markets and syndicates its programming to 1,900 stations around the country.

"Salem's principals, CEO Ed Atsinger and his brother-in-law and Board Chairman Stuart Epperson (himself a radio host), are long-time patrons of the Christian right and its favored Republican candidates and causes."

Much more.

Its Time to Fight the Religious Right

2005-09-29T22:27:00.000-04:00

DefCon, the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, officially launched today.

The campaign promises to aggressively challenge the religious right on the facts, the law and the Constitution. One defining characteristic of DefCon's approach -- is that it has apparently made a clean break with the dubious Inside-the-Beltway driven tactic of name-calling that has hobbled Democratic and liberal responses to the religious right for a generation. Instead of relying on focus-group derived labels such as "radical religious extremists," DefCon is choosing to focus on delivering clear, forceful arguments and messages. This is very good news and offers hope of the development of a far more productive strategy to persuade the American people that theocracy is not the direction we want to go.

Duke University Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky writing at the DefCon Blog says its "Time To Fight the Religious Right."

"I believe, Chemerinsky declared, "that the greatest threat to liberty in the United States is posed by the religious right, largely comprised of Christian fundamentalists. Across a broad spectrum of issues they want to move the law in a radically more conservative direction, ultimately threatening our freedom."

DefCon also released a report today titled Islands of Ignorance, describing the threat to American science education in ten states and localities where "intelligent design" is being promoted by the religious right as an alternative to evolution.

DefCon also released a letter, signed by leading scientists, clergy, Nobel Laureates and others, urging the governors of all 50 states to work to stop the erosion of American science education.

Specifically, we are concerned about efforts to supplement or replace the teaching of evolution in our public schools with religious dogma or unscientific speculation. Science classes should help provide our children with the tools and scientific literacy they need to succeed in a 21st century economy.

We are well aware of studies showing American children falling behind those of other nations in their knowledge and understanding of science. We certainly will not be able to close this gap if we substitute ideology for fact in our science classrooms – limiting students' understanding of a scientific concept as critical as evolution for ideological reasons.

We do not oppose exposing our children to philosophical and spiritual discussion around the origin and meaning of life. There are appropriate venues for such discussion -- but not in the context of teaching science in a public school science classroom.

We have come together -- people of science and people of faith – for the sake of our children and the competitiveness of our country, to urge you to ensure that:

-- Science curricula, state science standards, and teachers emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power.

-- Science teachers in your state are not advocating any religious interpretations of nature and are nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students.

-- There are no requirements to teach "creation science" or related concepts such as "intelligent design," or to "teach the controversy" -- implying that there is legitimate scientific debate about evolution when there is not. Teachers should not be pressured to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution.

-- Publishers of science textbooks should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks that distort or misrepresent the methodology of science and the current body of knowledge concerning the nature and study of evolution.

Our nation's future rests, as always, in the hands of our children. We hope to have your commitment to ensure that our schools teach science, not ignorance, to our children as they prepare the next generation for the challenges of a new century.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Roy Moore to Make a "Major Announcement"

2005-09-28T22:59:00.000-04:00

Roy Moore, the disgraced former Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court is thinking of making a comeback -- a run for the GOP nomination for governor of Alabama in 2006. According to the web site We Need Moore, the web site of the Draft Roy Moore campaign (backed by Conservative Christians of Alabama), Mr. Moore will make his intentions known in what is described as "a major announcement" on Monday, October 3 at 1:00pm in Gadsen, Alabama, Moore's hometown. "This will be an historic occasion," according to We Need Moore. "The eyes of the nation are upon Alabama. We need a crowd to show support for Judge Roy Moore and the media that we have strength. Ya'll come and bring a carload."

Moore, popularly known as the "Ten Commandments Judge" is thought to be a serious contender against the business oriented incumbent Republican governor, Bob Riley. Moore is also said to be seeking to field a full slate of candidates for statewide office.

On the Democratic side, the Associated Press reports that current Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley is expected to square off against former Gov. Don Sielgleman.

Moore is best known for installing a two and a half ton monument to the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse, shortly after his election as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. A federal judge declared that the monument was religious display that violated the constitutional separation of church and state and ordered Roy's rock removed. Moore refused to remove the monument and was subsequently removed from office. In so doing, he became a national hero of the Christian Right, and a central figure in far right efforts to undermine the federal judiciary.

As much as many Christian Right pols are a departure from the golf club Republicanism of much of the latter 20th century, Moore is a further departure, representing an overtly and confrontationally theocratic politics -- reminiscent of the pugnacious populism of former Gov. George Wallace.

The Birmingham News recently reported about one of Moore's recent appearances at a church in Ozark, Alabama: "More than 200 people filled the green pews of the Glory to Him Church to hear Roy Moore preach about God and government on a humid Thursday night. "We will always be one nation under God. No federal court, no federal government, no state government can deny it," Moore thundered. "Amen" the crowd answered back.

Mike's Message for Democrats

2005-09-27T22:33:00.000-04:00

A California college student and blogger named Basie, has an important interview with Michael Dukakis -- who has a message for the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Singer: Your one-time Lieutenant Governor John Kerry came very close to the Presidency this fall. What are some of your thoughts and feelings towards the election?

Michael Dukakis: I think the one great missing piece in this campaign, and it's something that we Democrats have got to get serious about at every level, was that we still aren't doing the grassroots job the way it has to be done. I happen to be a product of grassroots campaigning, grassroots organization. I wouldn't have been elected dogcatcher in my state had it not been for that.

When I'm talking about grassroots organization, I'm not talking about parachuting kids in with two weeks to go from seven states over. I'm talking about a precinct organization with a precinct captain in every precinct and block captains -- maybe a half a dozen per precinct -- who systematically make contact with every single voting household in that precinct, beginning early. This is not something you do in the last couple of weeks. You have to start months in advance. And you do it on a 50-state basis. I don’t care if the state is red, blue or polka dot.

We didn't do that. We didn't even do it in the battleground states. That isn't to take away from what otherwise I thought was a very strong campaign with a very strong candidate. I thought John did a good job and was a much better candidate than I was, frankly. I think his campaign was much better than mine.

We still aren't doing this grassroots job. I know there are people who don't think that old-fashioned grassroots campaigning works. They're just plain wrong. They've never done it, they don’t understand it. And that's what we have to do beginning now.

New Group to Fight the Religious Right

2005-09-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

DefCon, short for Campaign to Defend the Constitution: Because the Religious Right is Wrong, is a promising new Washington, DC-based internet campaign modeled on the success of MoveOn.com.

I have had a few advance peeks while it was in development, so I can attest that considerable thought has gone into its creation. DefCon says that "Americans deserve all the freedoms and rights promised in the Constitution. We cannot let religious zealots turn back the clock on civil rights, privacy, scientific progress, and quality education."

So check them out. They've got a good daily summary of articles on the controversy over intelligent design; and useful profiles of some religious right leaders.

Here is some of the press release about the official launch planned for Thursday"

New Online Campaign Launched Against Religious Right

Report Thursday Will Highlight Top Ten "Islands of Ignorance"
Where Teaching Evolution Is Threatened

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution will release a letter on Thursday to all fifty governors signed by Nobel laureates, other leading scientists and scores of clergy, calling on the states to ensure that science classes teach evolution and base curricula on established science, not ideology.

The Campaign will also release a report highlighting the top ten "Islands of
Ignorance" around the country where science education is under attack.

These announcements are the first actions of the newly formed Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon), an online grassroots movement to combat the threat posed by the religious right to American democracy, public education and scientific leadership. The Campaign is led by prominent national scientists, legal scholars and clergy......

The Campaign's Advisory Board includes such notable leaders as:

Bruce Alberts, former President of the National Academy of Sciences
Francisco Ayala, former President and Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Ira Glasser, former Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union
Rev. James Lawson, former President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health
Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor of Constitutional Law, Duke School of Law

The launch of DefCon coincides with the start of the trial in Dover, PA over a school board mandate to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

I will be a guest blogger at the DefCon blog from time-to-time, in addition to launching Talk to Action over the next little while.

The tide is turning, folks. We are adding a focused, netroots capacity for taking on the religious right that we have not had before. DefCon officially launches on Thursday. Talk to Action launches soon.

And you are invited.

The Blogging of the Deval Patrick Campaign for Governor

2005-09-26T17:38:00.000-04:00

Please welcome the Deval Patrick for Governor Blog to the MA political blogosphere.

This is, to my knowledge, the first candidate blog for any office in Massachusetts. Patrick earlier broke new ground across the summer by granting interviews to MA political bloggers.

On their first day, they are inviting comments on Patrick's economic plan which can be viewed here (pdf). For some additional perspectives on Patrick and economics, see the endorsement rationale of Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Governor Makes His State the Butt of His Jokes;Republican's Out-of-Town Act May Alienate Majority Democrats

2005-09-26T00:15:00.000-04:00

That's the headline on a story in today's Washington Post.

Making his state the butt of his jokes may go over big with with Christian Right and golf club Republicans in South Carolina, but here in MA, we just call him Governor Toast.

Evolution; Just a Guess?

2005-09-25T23:34:00.000-04:00

The blog Religion Clause has great primer for what is shaping up as a classic court case over the teaching of evolution or intelligent design in science classes. The federal trial begins Monday Sept 26th in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania regarding the "Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design. Intelligent design has become a flash point in the war over the role of religion in American society, and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District seems destined to become a symbolic battle..... At the heart of the case is a statement that the school district requires biology teachers to read to ninth-grade students:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

No doubt one aspect of the case will be the religious right's slippery use of language. One key arguement in the religious rights's grab bag is that the theory of evolution is well, "just a theory" and that other "theories" such as intelligent design, deserve to be presented in the name of academic freedom. The New York Times recently published a set of F.A.Q.s about evolution borrowed from a pamphlet used by the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, NY as part of their staff training program.

Is evolution 'just a theory'? A "theory" in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less than a "fact." Theories actually occupy the highest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas. ... Evolution is a "theory" in the same way that the idea that matter is made of atoms is a theory. Is it true that there is lots of evidence against evolution? No. Essentially all available data and observations from the natural world support the hypothesis of evolution. No serious biologist or geologist today doubts whether evolution occurred.