Round 1

I just watched the debate. Now that I've done my victory dance and had some ice cream and whooped it up with Jon Stewart, I can honestly say I feel better. Much better. We might still choose a president who is coherent, thoughtful, informed, and presidential. Bush looked like Randy from "Pee Wee's Playhouse." Remember him--the little bully puppet? Couldn't get that image out of my head.

Too bad it's a school night. I'd love to pop open a bottle of wine right now and crank out a bunch more letters to those attack poodle beeeeeaitches who, by morning, will be mining the deeper regions of their imaginations for ways to call it for the Chimpster, but I know what I saw. John Kerry just kicked George Bush's ass.

Perfidy

I just finished Homeland by R. H. Weber, the fictional counterpart to Cruel & Unusual: The Bush/Cheney New World Order that I wrote about a couple of days ago. Wow. Homeland's three main characters' lives are interwoven, each stationed at a different vantage point in the hierarchy of a not unrecognizable America in 2008: loyalty oaths are exchanged for academic grant money, Camp Delta is filled with "suspected terrorists" who are tortured into signing "confessions," travel in and out of the country is restricted, and most operations of the government are faith-based. Kids are scared. Adults are in various stages of rationalization and denial about the course of events since 2001. Everyone in this story is familiar. That's the scariest part of all.

In one particularly chilling moment, an ambitious professor of psychology has just participated in a nauseating sequence of interrogations of a prisoner at Guantánamo. The prisoner has been broken: the professor is washing away her qualms with a drink with her fellow interrogator, an Army major, who says, "The methods. . .are unattractive, I'll grant you that, Lara. No one in their right mind would debate that. I'm no brute. Both our motives are right, and in the end, that's what counts. Our beliefs are everything." The professor later reflects, "Quibblers may console themselves with upholding legalistic niceties; they may consider war and the striving for total security to be fit subjects only for dictatorships. But if a people can be toppled by eighteen or nineteen men infected with the [terrorist] virus, then history can, and must, be revised."

I could not put this book down. (If Grisham novels are anywhere near this good, maybe I'll read one some time.) Frequent references are made to Arthur Koestler's book Darkness at Noon, which I am off to the library to pick up now. But Homeland is a rich and timely instruction on how easy it is to bend to the will of our masters, even as we think we are resisting. As we struggle to get oriented in the huge gap between the words and actions of our real-life, real-time, "fictional" president (as Michael Moore famously said), this tiny novel (157 pages) is a useful guide to where we could be going. Read this one. It's too important to miss.

A couple of hours after I finished Homeland, I came across this disturbing post at Obsidian Wings: "Last month Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Congressman, introduced a bill that would clearly outlaw extraordinary rendition. But Markey only has 22 cosponsors, and now the House leadership is trying to legalize torture outsourcing--and hide it in the bill implementing the 9/11 Commission Report. These are excerpts from a press release one of Markey's staffers just emailed me:

The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the '9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004,' introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish 'by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured,' would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.

This provision was not part of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and the Commission actually called upon the U.S. to 'offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.' The Commission noted that 'The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach to the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law.' These standards prohibit the use of torture or other cruel or degrading treatment....

Rep. Markey said, 'When the Republicans 9/11 bill is considered in the House, I intend to offer an amendment to strike the torture outsourcing provisions from the Republican bill and replace it with restrictions restoring international law as provided in my bill. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Republican Leadership has decided to load up the 9/11 Commission bill with legislative provisions that would legitimize torture, particularly when the Commission itself called for the U.S to move in exactly the opposite direction.'

There is no possible way for a suspect being detained in secret to prove by 'clear and convincing evidence' that he will be tortured if he is deported--especially when he may be deported to a country where has never been, and when the officials who want to deport him serve as judge, jury and executioner, and when there is never any judicial review. This bill will make what happened to Maher Arar perfectly legal, and guarantee that it will happen again. Markey's staffer wrote to me that 'this bill could be on the House floor as early as next week.'"

How boldy the Republicans go into territory that, until now, few us could even imagine.

And Now for Some Good News

This is from the Iconoclast, the newspaper in Crawford, Texas, where Resident "All Hat and No Cattle" Bush has his ranch:

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
"Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

* Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
* Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
* Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
* Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
* Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
* Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
* Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It's impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics. Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security.

Bush's answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern's dress. America's reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and 'spin' will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.

Kerry also voted against President Bush's $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans' entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling "test" from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton -- companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans' programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process -- an enormous conflict of interest -- plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry's voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry."

You Decide, the Sequel

Does George Bush exhibit signs of malignant narcissism?

An article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder provides a compelling description. "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love;

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions);

4. requires excessive admiration;

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends;

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others;

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her;

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."

Cruel and Unusual

I spent much of the weekend reading Mark Crispin Miller's book Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order. I came across this book quite by accident on a trip to the library where my quarry was It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis (1935), which my library did not have. (It did not have any books by Sinclair Lewis, in fact; nor did it have anything by Hannah Arendt. I was looking for The Origins of Totalitarianism.) As I was huffing out in disgust, Miller's book caught my eye from its place low on the New Non-Fiction shelf. The picture on the cover, of Bush frozen in a moment of pure, primate aggression is a perfect mirror of my image of the man. As it turns out, the book is extensively about the phenomenon of projectivity that I wrote about in my previous post. Cruel and Unusual is richly substantiated and frank in its description of the "values" that underlie the Bush push for world domination. (The title says it all, but if you want the encapsulated version, read this interview.) Miller brilliantly examines Bush's troubled past, his garbled speech, and his apcalyptic world view and brings to light the paranoia and egomania that drive Bush's actions and inactions. Finally, a writer who just comes right out and says the man is nuts!

This is one of many books that we will look back on and wonder how we missed it, how we could have so quickly become Oceania while people were drafting viable lifeboats all around us. Reading this book and others I have mentioned before, I can see the future Bush/Cheney has sketched out for us. It is a future that is all about them, their power, their advantage, their gleeful destruction of everything not-them. That destruction will include me and, eventually, you. Finally, they will self-destruct because the evil they're really after is comfortably situated in the center of their hateful black hearts. In the meantime, we are either in the way or along for the ride.

Yeah, yeah, I know I sound like Debbie Downer, and that's unfashionable or not what the DNC recommends or whatever. As a nation, we have grown overly intolerant of anything that does not cater to our immediate sense of comfort. We have our bread and our circuses. What do we care? When I try to talk to others in my immediate circle about what I'm reading or imagining, they wrinkle their noses and turn away because it's all "too depressing." Someone "out there" will fix it. They always do, right?

I can't speak for always. I think these times are different, incendiary. I believe that being awake, aware, and informed could change things. When I pay attention, when I read writers who describe in detail the warts on the Emperor's bare ass, I am more able to manage my level of despair. On a practical level, every book I buy or check out sends the message that I am not complicit in the Bush/Cheney grand larceny. From these readings, I get affirmation that the things I see are real--the revision of history and the Constitution to theocratic ends, the silencing of dissent and the marginalization of the majority, the construction of a mass delusion flowing from one man's pathology. If you doubt this, notice how the patronizing, repetitious tone of CNN seduces you into believing that you are "informed." Refusing to be hypnotized is my first personal form of resistance.

When I am depressed, I feel compelled to do something to alleviate my depression. Every fiber of my being resists acting, of course. Being depressed tricks us into passivity, amplifying and even requiring our unwillingness to identify and clean up the mess as we see it. And in the case of today's politics, much of what is troubling is far outside my sphere of influence. However, I can sit right here and examine how much of my shadow is projected out onto Bush/Cheney. I can accept that there is a part of me that is terrified of what it cannot control. I can see how I crave approval and acceptance, and I wonder, if I was in their shoes, would I handle my ego any more gracefully? I can also account for the times when I've let my fear or rage control me and acted from it, to my detriment and others'. These are the things that I bring inward to my God, in all humility and in deepest privacy. I do not share their experience of God as a cudgel to be inflicted on someone else. I get that they are incapable of seeing me in themselves in the form of empathy, self-doubt, queerness, or fear. I can also see that I differ from Bush/Cheney in my fundamental optimism about people, about the power of goodness, and the general direction of Project Earth. I certainly think they can, and may, destroy the world and everything I love. It is a frightening prospect, but one that I see in a larger and decidedly non-apocalyptic context: they cannot destroy the fact or experience of my love. I am not an unfettered entity whose experiences are swept into oblivion at some preappointed hour. I feel, I think, I can speak, I can listen, I can gain wisdom. These are my immortal powers, my contribution to the collective pickle that has us looking at Bush/Cheney and seeing either a Satan or a Savior.

Quantum physicists tell us that the observation of a phenomenon changes that phenomenon. And so my second act of resistance is to bear witness to these cruel and unusual people and the world as they will have it.

The Swagger of Swaggart

Jimmy Swaggart of televangelism fame recently received applause and hoots of approval from his "Christian" congregation for saying that he would kill any gay man who looked at him "with romantic intent." Before I go on, let me quote the sermon directly:

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."

(shouts, applause)

"And I'm gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that I'm going to kill him and tell God he died."

(laughter, applause)

"In case anybody doesn't know God calls it an abomination. It's an abomination! It's an abomination!"

(applause)

..."I'm not knocking the poor homosexual. I'm not. They need salvation just like anybody else.... I'm knocking our pitiful, pathetic lawmakers. And I thank God that President Bush has stated we need a constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman."

I have so many reactions to this, it's hard to know where to start. First, if Jimmy was a reasonable man (which clearly he is not), I would love to ask him 1.) how he determines the intent of anyone's gaze, and 2.) why does the fantasy of what he would do with a gay man even enter into his heterosexual head? Maybe it's just because my fantasies focus more on what I do want than what I don't, I don't get the mechanics of Jimmy's desire. Perhaps gay men should stop assuming it "can't happen here" and start thinking about how to respond to the homicidal intent of Jimmy's eyes upon them. Perhaps they should be buying assault weapons (now that they're legal and all) and organizing themselves into tastefully dressed militias.

One problem with Swaggart's swaggering pronouncements is that we can be wrong when we assume we know the intent of another human being. Doesn't the Bible suggest that God is the only one who can see into the hearts of men? I've looked at the concordance in my St. James version, and nowhere do I see Swaggart the modern Pharisee conflated with God. And what about the Judaic edict "Thou shalt not kill" that the so-called Christians want with the other nine Commandments to inform future interpretations of the Constitution? But because Jimmy's homosexual fantasies are such a temptation for him, such an "abomination," such a threat to his sense of himself as a man, he must project them outward onto others and imagine that the "romantic intent" is coming from them. All you gay Republicans out there better keep your eyes on the floor. Straight Republicans, too: What if Jimmy mistakes your admiration of his macho stance as some kind of homo thing? In fact, the world would be a better place if ALL eyes were averted from this evil zealot. But here in America, he is applauded.

You Decide

Psychologist M. Scott Peck, in People of the Lie, identifies evil as a "malignant narcissism" that features all four of the following characteristics:

• "consistent, destructive scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle;"
• "excessive, albeit unusually covert, intolerance of criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury;"
• "pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life style, but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings and vengeful motives;"
• "intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking in times of crisis."

Below is a definition of fascism from Lawrence Britt in Free Inquiry magazine, based on studies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. As Britt notes, "all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible...Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve thenational interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite."

From Loose Threads, A Garment

I haven't blah-blah-blogged for a week because I haven't had much to say. (Don't you wish more bloggers would follow this simple internal guide?) I woke up at 5:30 this morning and had an insight, so I thought this might be a good day to get back to it. The entire week past was devoted to Domestic Responsibility: I went to the grocery store more than once, did the Target/Home Depot run, visited our friendly neighborhood dry cleaner a couple of times, and painted the front porch, among other things. My daughter returned to Iraq, and I suspect my uncharacteristic interest in leaving the house was my way of managing the anxiety that comes with having your only child traveling into a war zone. I also imagine the Wet Paint sign across the front porch might keep the G-men from being able to deliver bad news, should there be any. This is how things work in my loosely constructed universe.

Aside from the wind whistling through my head, there has been a downturn in my political optimism. It is not based on polls, either, because I have been only remotely aware of their results lately. It's actually based on my observation that America identifies way too much with Dubya and my belief that Dubya needs to face the mess he's made and deal with the consequences. I won't bore you non-astrologers with the celestial details, but Dubya and America have some powerful mutual lessons to learn, and school began in earnest on 9/11. I don't see Dubya as big, strong Daddy to this nation of powerful, frightened children: I see the world about to take a Tough Love approach to a kid out of control. It may take a decade, but in the end, I think that's what will happen. And one by one, we Americans will have to learn what life is like in all those places we can't even find on the map. We'll learn what it is like to be truly poor and powerless, living in a contaminated environment subject to harsh weather patterns, unable to take safe food or water for granted. Oh, and everyone will have assault weapons. Until we learn how that's a bad thing, I think we will have the government that we deserve.

Also, I think John Kerry has been a bit of a wash. I remember back when I was very nearly a Deaniac, jaded eyes beheld me with pity and assured me that "Kerry was the only electable Democratic candidate." Kerry's a great senator and I have nothing but admiration for his anti-war stance given that he actually saw the war first-hand, but he doesn't understand that we need cartoon characters to inspire us to vote--brash, jibberish-speaking, looney types, like Dubya and the neocons. Dean at least had steam coming out of his ears, and I liked that.

Now you've probably forgotten about the aforementioned insight, but it does relate to the political preamble in that I have been thinking a lot about what we do in the world, and in particular what I do in mine. It goes back to this notion of meaningful work. Dubya was able to evolve from a guy who kicked Sammy Sosa to the curb and couldn't find oil in Texas to being president of the United States, something that should shine like a ray of hope for all of us--or at least those of us who have wealth, connections, and a pushy mother. I was reflecting on this year I've taken "off" and how it's affected my sense of "respectability." I took this time to work on something that was important to me: a family history. I did not do it because I thought my project would be published or profitable; I did it because I was interested in history. I did it because I wanted to see where I would go, left to my own discipline. The family bit has made a personally meaningful lens through which I have learned much about how my people, the "little people," experienced history from 1813 to now. Judging by the concerns reflected in the diaries and letters of my ancestors, even in war time, people stay focused on the things right in front of them: the checkbook, the cupboard, the vicissitudes of their own social standing. Indeed, these have been the things that have crushed some in my family and spurred others forward. These are the things by which we measure the success of a life.

I had to step off the gerbil wheel of consumer life and get in touch with my French ancestry to understand that I've been doing meaningful work all along. Now that economic survival has ceased to be my North, I see that I have always been a writer and an astrologer, though I have mostly denied both.

After a year of writing, I am just getting loosened up enough to truly inhabit this emerging identity. I read constantly. My mind is a humming network of questions that join territories of psychology and politics. The answers to the questions are shape-shifters, appearing in one domain as reason, in another as instinct. For a year I've felt the Venn diagram of Me and The World merging, so that inner and outer are in direct correspondence. It's an interesting viewpoint, one that I hope to articulate in the future. The simple act of writing, of blogging, in particular, has made me listen more. I've become more adept at identifying my voice and discerning it from the high-volume opinions of others whose books and blogs engage vast numbers of readers. It is an endless source of amusement for me that pundits are just now postulating that Rulership by Testosterone might be the road to ruin. I've known that since I was 12.

Astrology has been a useful map of my interior on this strange journey, with all its conflicts and confluence, as well as a way to understand the timing of events that seem to happen "out there." It has helped me to be calm and see order in things that might otherwise seem completely chaotic, and my mind, for one, seeks order. I have also studied astrology since I was about 12.

So there it is, the thing I've run from all my life: I am a writer. I am an astrologer. Totally useless in terms of income generation. Easily dismissed by people who fancy themselves rationalists. It is a comfort to me to know that no matter who is president, and no matter what distasteful tasks I have to endure to get money, I will measure my own life by growth in these areas and not on any other terms.

What I Said When I Spoke Truth to Power

Whew. Well, I'm back from the press conference marking the 1,000th death of an American soldier in Iraq. I am so glad I went. People everywhere--cabbies, TSA employees, fellow travelers--hate George Bush. The ones who don't are quiet if they are within hearing distance of casual conversations in which Righteous Bush Fire breaks out, but don't trust them for a minute. They mean to steal your country and keep it. Washington was as fabulous as it was last time I was there and had no time to really go out and see the monuments and what-not, but one of these days I will go there expressly for that purpose. There was one delightful Asian cab driver who pointed out each monument with great pride and told us everything he knew about each one as we drove to our hotel. When we passed the Kennedy Center, he mentioned how he longed to see a performance there but he couldn't afford it. Is it really a good idea to have art out of the reach of the people? Couldn't a ghetto kid enjoy Yo-Yo Ma as much as the bored, rich white guy in the tux? I'm just saying.

The press conference was convened in Washington, D.C., by former Representative Tom Andrews of Maine, now director of Win Without War. Also on the panel were Jim Wallis of Sojouners, a group of churches speaking out against the political use of churches; Barbara Porchia, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq; Ivan Medina, an Iraq veteran whose twin brother was also killed in Iraq. Most of the American press were off covering the Abu Ghraib scandal trials, but several international press organizations were there. Apparently, Europe and Asia are vastly more interested in hearing from Americans who truly have an investment in George Bush's military adventures. Below is the text of my speech (minus my occasional stutter or fugue state!):

"When Military Families Speak Out asked me to speak here today, I was hesitant. Why would an avowed introvert want to leave the comfort of home and endure the indignities of air travel for a cause that is said to be unfashionable, even unpatriotic? Those of us who speak out are tired of being maligned and dismissed by the radicals in the White House and their media messengers. We are told that ours is the unpopular opinion, although unprecedented millions all over the world protested the attack on Iraq before it even began. Now it seems that war has dropped off our radar. America has turned its gaze inward, but in a self-congratulatory way--not a reflective one. Indeed, we are led by a president who prides himself on his lack of curiosity and an unwillingness to change his mind.

I was born in 1961, so war was the backdrop of my childhood. When we pulled our troops out of Vietnam, I was profoundly relieved by the quiet and the disappearance of body counts from the nightly news. It wasn't like now, when soldiers' deaths are hidden from view to keep public opinion subdued. Back then, it took 58,000 deaths for America to say 'enough,' though what was bought with those deaths, I can't say. Perhaps it is a sign of progress that we are compelled to stop today and acknowledge the loss of a thousand.

My daughter and son-in-law joined the military because they believed it was a force for good in the world. For most of my family's eight generations in this country, it has been. That aura of goodness faded somewhat when Iraq became the whipping boy for Saudi Arabia. It was tarnished further as a year passed without the discovery of any weapons of mass destruction. That's OK, our kids said, It will all be over when we catch Saddam. And they did, but they still could not come home. Now our soldiers are told that they are in Iraq to spread democracy, though many of them have yet to participate in an election themselves! Over the past year, families were getting emails that said things like this: 'Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you--been busy and the power has been surging on and off, so we haven't really had any way to access our lights, let alone the computers. . . Just two weeks ago, two people, one of them was a friend of mine, were killed on convoy. When we went to the remembrance ceremony, we were told they died honorable deaths fighting until the end. It was a bunch of b.s. Everyone from that convoy got up and walked out. . .Also, they probably didn't tell the civilian world that we don't follow the Geneva rules of engagement anymore. We are allowed to shoot anyone at any time for no particular reason and get away with it.' And this: 'With this occupation, there are always two sides. On one hand, I will not disagree that we have done a lot of good for this country. But let's look at the other statistics. The numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed in this conflict. The number of wounded. The number of Iraqi widows and widowers and orphans we've made. The number of innocent Iraqis we've forced to live in horrible confinement camps because we snared too wide of a net in the search for insurgents. The amount of Iraqi homes we've ransacked in the relentless search for a few insurgents. I'd give you numbers, but no one's been able to get anything remotely accurate. But in the end, when your loved one has been killed by the occupation, there aren't enough schools that can be built to replace that. . .' Keep in mind that these were written long before Abu Ghraib cast its shadow across them. Confusion and frustration are not a part of the story that's been heard much, but I think we'll hear more of it as time goes on.

We've set a precedent that other countries will follow with our gamble of preemptive war. We have yet to hear neocon hawks admit that it has not been 'a cakewalk,' but I think the soldiers would tell you that it has not been. We have yet to see the thousands of injured soldiers and the effect of their wounds on our society. We are stuck in a quagmire that could cost me a daughter or you a son. We are not safer, and we are certainly not more free. We are unwelcome occupiers of a foreign country. How many more Americans and Iraqis will have to die before we admit that we have overstepped and bring our troops home?"

I don't know why I get so nervous about doing these things. It's like I swallow a golf ball and then try to emit a great big howling Walt Whitmanesque yawp. Once I do them and say what I have to say, I feel strong and ready to talk at length with anyone who looks in my direction. I learned a lot about how I cripple myself in my dialogue with the world by assuming that what I say isn't right or welcome or focused enough to get my message across. I second-guess myself into paralysis. I'm going to work on being less bunged up and more overtly pissed, but the universe is going to have to help me out by giving me more opportunities to refine my skill. Having said that, I am now going to resume the crouching position while secretly hoping I get a chance to do this again and to do it better.

Oy oy oy

Recently I whined to my friend Mike, "So I'm fairly intelligent, articulate, and have skills that adapt to any number of environments. I work hard and play fair and try to live lightly on the Earth. Why can't I find meaningful work?!" I was particularly distressed by having presented myself at the very-nearly-invisible Kerry campaign headquarters as a volunteer and being told they didn't really need any help in my progressive little burg of Chicago. Reflecting on a long series of jobs I've held and how they all ultimately turned out to be unsatisfactory, and my great good fortune to have a partner who supports me while I thrash around and indulge my interests (hoping that something will come of doing what I do best), I recently decided to shrug off my apparent lack of usefulness in the world. "Fine, world," I said to no one at all, "I'll just go be a freelance writer-editor-voracious reader-astrologer-adventurer-activist-type person." Or whatever. I decided that I really had nothing to add to the political conversation going on at high decibels in the media and on the Internet. I had tried to organize a group of military moms into a cohesive, or at least audible, voice with no real success. I'd faced the fact that most of what I am interested in has no zap whatsoever for anyone else I know. It was time to simply enjoy the ride.

I had just swallowed this pill of self-pity when the phone rang. Could I come to Washington tomorrow to speak at a press conference marking the 1,000th death in Iraq? Would I share my experience as the mother of a soldier?

Be very careful what you ask for, at least in terms of meaningful work.

So after a sleepless night of wondering what to say, who I was speaking to, and whether or not it really mattered, I'm off to say what I've said all along: war bad. Now the Russians are pointing to Bush's pre-emptive doctrine as justification for attacking the terrorists next door in the wake of the deadly hostage-taking in Baslan. Look forward to the spilling of blood in Chechnya and Russia giving a whole new meaning to "red state."

The Vietnam War formed the backdrop for my entire childhood. When it ended in 1976, I was 15. I remember believing then that young people would no longer die in faraway jungles and feeling a profound sense of relief about this. Whatever was bought with those 58,000 American deaths is still not clear to me. When I became a mother myself I knew that there was no objective in the world--political, economic, or patriotic--that would be worth my daughter's life. When she decided to join the military, I expressed my objection to her, describing what I saw as a bellicose and reckless administration that would put her in harm's way unnecessarily. But as every parent learns, loving a child is a long lesson in letting go. And so she went, sure that she was "doing something good for the Iraqi people." This turned out to include shooting them with little or no provocation. Now our kids are occupiers, astonished at the Iraqis' lack of gratitude. The justification for the war has changed with the seasons. If it was about weapons of mass destruction, we were wrong. If it was about deposing Saddam, that's done. If it's about "spreading democracy," we're full of shit. Democracy comes from the will of the people. Authoritarianism comes from their/our lack of will. The growing mountain of dead bodies will not alter what is unfolding here or in Iraq. Let's face it-- it was and is about empire and hubris and an unquenchable thirst for power.

I'm not going to change anyone's mind with what I have to say. Most people already took a position and are dug in for the fight, me included. It is highly unlikely that the press conference will even find its way into the slimy stream of propaganda that passes for journalism now. But because I grew up in the shadow of Vietnam, I know that every death will diminish this armchair warrior fantasy in another home in America. Eventually we will have to accept the fact that we are not wanted and withdraw. How many Americans will have to die before that happens? And will my beloved, benighted girl be one of them?

Until I know, I have an obligation (to myself, anyway) to register my disgust with the course we have chosen and continue to pursue.