The Rogue Scholar

An Open Letter to Steve Elliot of Grassfire.org

Dear Steve,

I'd like to thank you for keeping in touch the past few months. Really, I had no idea that I was living in a fascist state, so I appreciate your setting me straight on that matter. I notice that the tone and substance of your e-mails have been becoming increasingly hysterical since last November, which concerns me a bit; the last thing an organization like Grassfire.org needs is an obvious lunatic at its helm.  That said, I had no choice but to take issue with some portions of your most recent missive. I'm sure these are the innocent misunderstandings of a man under deadline writing to persuade, but they needed to be addressed.

Anyway, the text of your latest e-mail (edited for space) and my responses are as follows (your text in italics):

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance


Jonathan,

Forget about the separation of church and state, these are desperate
times for Democrats who are suddenly embracing all things holy to
pass ObamaCare!

         Attempting to moralize the health care debate,
         Obama had the audacity to spew that those opposing
         ObamaCare were "frankly, bearing false witness."

         He pressed on, casting his perfect pro-abortion record aside
         saying passage of health care reform is "a core ethical and
         moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another;
         that is, I am my brother's keeper."

It's interesting to see that you only approve of bringing religion into a public speech when it's spoken by a politician you like or delivering a biblical point of view you agree with. I don't know which Bible you've been reading but it seems to have misprinted the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:3-4:12):

4:3 At the designated time ⁹  Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground for an offering ¹⁰  to the Lord. 4:4 But Abel brought ¹¹  some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest ¹²  of them. And the Lord was pleased with ¹³  Abel and his offering, 4:5 but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. ¹⁴  So Cain became very angry, ¹⁵  and his expression was downcast. ¹⁶ 

4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? 4:7 Is it not true ¹⁷  that if you do what is right, you will be fine? ¹⁸  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching ¹⁹  at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.” ²⁰

4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” ²¹  While they were in the field, Cain attacked ²²  his brother ²³  Abel and killed him.

4:9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” ²⁴  And he replied, “I don’t know! Am I my brother’s guardian?” ²⁵  4:10 But the Lord said, “What have you done? ²⁶  The voice ²⁷  of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! 4:11 So now, you are banished ²⁸  from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 4:12 When you try to cultivate ²⁹  the ground it will no longer yield ³⁰  its best ³¹  for you. You will be a homeless wanderer ³²  on the earth.”

The lesson is pretty clear here: Cain was his brother's keeper, and his jealously and rage at his brother's apparent success (as well as his own apparent failure) was both unjustified and destructive. There is no other way to read these passages as far as I can tell. Conservatives speak often of "the politics of envy" within the liberal heart, but how little room there seems to be in your own for those Jesus called "the least among you." Surely those Americans with no access to even the most basic health care fall into that category.

Doesn't his brother live in a tiny box somewhere in Africa?

Since the president's half-brother, George, is not a bullfrog or a praying mantis I assume you're referring to the incident described here. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I'm not sure what your point is, however; I can think of a few different ways of parsing that line about "living in a tiny box in Africa somewhere." To me it sounds vaguely racist to assume that the guy somehow deserves to be in a Nairobi jail cell for possession of a roach (if that is the case), but that's just me.  It's not on a par with burning a cross on the White House lawn or shouting "Die, Nigger, Die" (certainly not on the same page as  that wacko Randall Terry who is apparently threatening to blow up congress if all abortion everywhere is not banned immediately), but likely in the same realm. To be honest if you wrote me an e-mail with the subject line of "Just Get That Nigger Out of Office Already!" I'd have a lot more respect for you. It would be more honest on Grassfire.org's part than any of the other e-mails I have received so far.

No matter. Obama and the Democrats are pulling out the stops-- Bill
Clinton and even the Al "Gore-acle" showed up at events waxing
inspirational and calling passage of health care reform a
"moral imperative."

In fact, this Wednesday (Sept. 9), Obama will address the nation
during a joint session of Congress where I'm certain he will announce
that he has personally partnered with the Almighty to pass health
care reform!

Certitude is nice but generally misguided. Unless one of Obama's staff or God himself actually told you or one of your staff of this, I'd have to conclude that you're making an assumption, and an ass of yourself in the process. (When you ass-ume . . .) Also, Steve, the debate is a moral one, regardless of the fact that you don't like more than half the country's moral position.

500,000 Petitions Opposing ObamaCare!

In terms of purely political activism, that's a worthy goal. In terms of 1% of the population attempting to make sure the 15% of the country that currently has no health care never gets health care, well, that's pretty immoral in my book. Planning your own little "Death Panel," are you? Nice.

Jonathan, we have the momentum, and I refuse to allow Obama
or anyone else to moralize this debate in such a way as to undermine
what we've been able to accomplish so far.

All right, then: how would you like Obama or anyone else to moralize the debate? You don't specifically say, but the wording of your sentence suggests you'd be fine with it if Obama just let you have your political way.  For the record, he's been doing just that on a number of issues. So I don't get why you're so damn scared of him. Is it the Black thing? Is it those sleeveless dresses that Michelle favors? Help me out, here, because I got nothing.

That's why on Wednesday--just hours before Obama takes to the airwaves,
I want to announce to the nation that grassroots opposition to
ObamaCare is on the rise!

Good for you. It' good to want things.

Right now we are only about 60,000 signers shy of reaching our
monumental goal of half-a-million citizen signers who, like me,
refuse to be bullied or intimidated into silence!

"Intimidated into silence"? You make so much noise we can hear you from two states away! I'm sorry to hear you are being "bullied," but that gives me another question to ask: don't you ever get tired of being a victim?

Congress and Obama are desperate. We have the momentum, and with your
continued help we will continue to grow the resistance against
socialized health care.

Someone is certainly getting desperate (project much?) but I doubt it's congress, since this is not an election year. Anyway, Steve, here's what I am willing to do, one American who wants what's best for the country to another (so you say). You don't like socialism? Fine. Discard it. Publish a legal document (signed and notarized) in which you waive your right to every socialized program currently in use in this country at every level of government. Sign away your right to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, the home mortgage deduction, the whole gamut of government programs. Give them all up. Get others on Grassfire.org's mailing list to do the same. Live by the principles you espouse. In return, I will personally forward this e-mail (sans my comments) to everyone I know. It's easy, just write and sign the letter, have it notarized then convert it to a PDF and put it on the web with a link that I can use to see it. That's all I'm asking of you. For a great patriot like yourself it should come easily. If not, well, I'll have no choice but to assume you are merely another greedy, racist windbag.

I think that's fair.

By the way, this conversation that Senator Al Franken had with a group of concerned Minnesotans at the Minnesota State Fair is what an actual debate on health care looks like. Pay particular attention to the redhead with the Tea Party t-shirt. Besides speaking the name "Obama" in the same tone a Florida redneck from 1953 might say another word for a black man, once the information flows and the discussion really gets going, she has absolutely nothing to contribute. Rather like your fellow activists on Grassfire.org.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Frater

Vote, Damn You! VOTE!

I'm tempted to say that I care that you vote rather than who you vote for. On some level I believe that. The big money donations which generally come from corporate accounts rather than individuals has been contributing well to both candidates, but they've been donating a bit more to Obama because they believe he'll win. In terms of policy--at least to judge from what passed for policy discussion during the debates--there's not that much difference between them. Neither candidate mentioned implementing a comprehensive national health care system, overhauling and re-regulating out financial system, or reducing Pentagon-based spending, for example. That said, I'm voting for Obama. Take that as an example to follow, or not.

There are many moments when race really does matter to people. I think tomorrow will be one of those times. I think a great many otherwise well-informed, highly educated, confident (dare I say, liberal-minded, or perhaps conservative) folks are going to go into that booth, pull the curtain and just not be comfortable pulling the lever for The First Black President of the United States. Some people may hesitate then pull the lever anyway, and to them I say, good for you. But some others just won't be able to do it. To them, I say this: if you must vote for a white man, vote for Bob Barr. If you must vote for a woman, vote for Cynthia McKinney. There may be good reasons to vote for John McCain, but I confess I can't think of any at the moment. I haven't been able to think of any over the past six months. In 2000, when McCain sounded like a sane human being, I could understand voting for him for President. Not any more.

And this year promises to be even more (cough) interesting in terms of problems at the booth than 2000 or 2004. The Republican Party (and McCain's campaign in particular) has shown itself to be the greatest den of scum and villainy we've had to look at in a long time. They will try to get their man in any way they can and if that means lying to people about what's going on before, during, and after the election, they'll do it. With that in mind, here are a few things to be aware of as you head for that curtained booth:

First, if you are registered to vote, you have the right to cast a ballot. Period.

You can not be prevented from voting if you arrive at your polling place with unpaid parking tickets or mortgage payments.

You must go to vote on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, just like everyone else in the U.S.

You do not need to go through some wacky arbitrary test to prove your identity before you vote, although a photo ID is a good thing to take with you, just in case.

Know your polling place ahead of time and arrive early.

Nobody in this country can vote by phone. You must go to your polling place or mail in an absentee ballot.

Verify your registration beforehand if you need to.

Finally, if poll workers insist you can't vote for whatever reason, let someone know about it.

Now, vote, damn you! Vote! (Tomorrow . . .)

Still More on John McCain's Qualifications to be President

This article from Tim Dickinson in this week's Rolling Stone magazine doesn't tell the whole story of John McCain's life--because no single article in a weekly periodical can tell The Whole Story, all 72 years' of McCain's life included--but it does put the candidate's military service, malleable personal ideals and volcanic temper into a coherent perspective.  Definitely worth the read.  Enjoy!

Sarah Palin: Library Censor or Just Another Fascist?

It turns out that Sarah Palin may not be quite the advocate of library censorship many of us have been led to believe.  This bulletin from  FactCheck.org showed up in my mailbox the other day:

One false rumor accuses then-Mayor Palin of threatening to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. The story is false on several fronts: Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla’s department heads resign. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four department heads to retain their positions. But on Jan. 30, 1997, three months after the censorship discussion, Palin informed Emmons and Wasilla’s police chief, Irv Stambaugh, that they would be fired. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing. Palin rehired Emmons the following day. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

So she never actually demanded that particular books be removed, banned, burned, or what-have-you. She merely floated the idea to see if her local librarian would freak out. (It'd be interesting to be able look in her head and see what she actually expected to happen.) Additionally, the head librarian continued to work for Palin  for quite a long time. Okay, fine.

But the thing about loyalty tests and such bug the living crap out of me. Haven't we had enough of that since 2000? Pretty much the only people still in public policy at the federal level are the crooks, sycophants, ideologues and incompetents. I haven't seen much to make me believe that a McCain-Palin administration would not be more of the same.

Sarah Palin: "A Pitbull With Lipstick"

Yes, sir. That's what the front page of the NY Daily News says: "A Pitbull With Lipstick."  I wish Sarah Palin's speech writers had chosen a different metaphor. Hell, I like dogs as much as anyone else, but would I trust my dog with, say, the keys to my car? Or planning my family's budget? Or with responsibility for keeping tabs on what the neighbors were up to? Maybe not.  Of course, someone who might become president would upon ascension to that particular throne be responsible for maintaining the country's transportation infrastructure, creating a national budget and sticking to it, developing the highest quality of intelligence on what our allies and enemies were doing, etc.

Not the best metaphor, is all I'm saying. Although people loved it. People love a good zinger.

Additionally there's been tons of excellent writing on her prospects as a potential VP  (and a potential president, considering John McCain's chronic health problems). Andrew Sullivan has written this for the Atlantic, and the subject of her views towards libraries (the short version is that she likes censorship)  has been covered by the NY Times, the Politico, Alternet, and I'm sure there's more out there. (RS Edit--like this article from the Wall Street Journal.)

As to the bigger picture Andrew Tobias wrote a pretty comprehensive bit on the festivities inside the Republican's Big Tent last night. Meanwhile Glen Greenwald wrote a rather more comprehensive sequence of bits on the festivities concerning those outside that tent. Short version is that Republicans are fascists. Pure and simple. You're either with them or against them. And if you're against them, you're shot at, beaten, arrested, gassed, and otherwise frowned upon for protesting what they like. (Which you're only likely to find inside the Big Tent.)

That's not to say that Mrs. Palin's a bad person. (Lew Rockwell positively gushes over her in this column. His problem with her is the fact she signed a deal with the Devil when she said "Yes!" to McCain.) A much more complete picture of her is presented by a neighbor of hers in the Washington Independent (which I've posted in its entirety behind the cut.)

Here is what it boils down to for me.  After listening to her speak, and reading what I've found online, and listening to people whose opinions and research I generally respect, and thinking about it for a day or two, I've decided that Sarah Palin  would be every bit as good a President of the United States as John McCain would be. Which is why I've just cracked open my wallet and donated an ungodly (for me) sum to the DNC.

Remember that as librarians we are guardians of ideas. All ideas, even the ones we don't agree with. Even the ones that make us nuts and raise our blood pressure. Today's Republicans--I mean the ones attracted to public office rather than the rank-and-file--do not seem to share those values. They like censorship, they like banning books. They do this because deep down they like rules, they like order, they like a concrete, predictable universe and when they're presented with reality with all its contradictions, chaos and mind-boggling hugeness, they become scared. Their answer to this is to try to control everything to make us "safe." And yet they talk about "freedom" quite a lot.  A moment's real thought will bring one to the conclusion that you can be safe or free but not both.

So, although deep down in my cynic's heart I realize that the whole business of politics is a combination of mass-marketed entertainment and calculated distraction, meaning that even if the Democrats win, very little will probably change, but I refuse to do nothing. I admit that political donations and blogging are a crappy substitute for genuine civic involvement, but you gotta start somewhere.

Anyway, read what I've linked to, take a look behind the cut and enjoy your weekend.

Edit: I totally missed this piece by George Lakoff on the mental processes of electoral politics earlier. In light of what's mentioned above it's definitely work reading. Enjoy!

Bush-Loving Republicans Threaten Librarian

Lifted verbatim from Andy:

A 61-year-old librarian was ticketed (her court date is July 23^rd), escorted off a public plaza outside a McCain town hall meeting, and threatened with arrest for carrying a sign that read “McCain=Bush.”  (Hey, it’s a free country – you ought to be able to be arrested for anything, so long as it’s not hurting other people, right?)

 You really have to watch the two-minute video.  I love what she asks at the end: “Why is [the sign] offensive? Why would Republicans who voted for Bush find it offensive?”

I suppose it would be gilding the lily to note that when the grotesquely unchristian Reverend Phelps holds up signs reading “God Hates Fags” outside funeral services, he is not ticketed, forced to leave, or threatened with arrest. (Nor, in, America should he be.)

Defensive Republicans . . . that's just sad. And more than slightly telling.

Bill Moyers Talks About Karl Rove

Today, I can limit my post to three words: "Moyers on Rove."

Watch the video here.

After you've absorbed that--and only after that--watch what Stephen Colbert has to say about Daily Kos, hate groups, and librarians here.

(All right, that was 39 words, shoot me.)

Memorial Day History Lesson

I've been away for a bit and it's been amazingly busy at the Academy library, but in response to stuff like this and bits like this , I feel that I must respond by posting links to the full text of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (in that order).  I chose that order for the simple reason that according to Google, more people do searches for the former (upwards of 38 million hits) than the latter (a mere 1.1 million) which is, in my view, a ray of sunshine in an otherwise depressing sea of current events ("Anna, Anna, ANNA!!!.")  Yowza.

That said, the links I posted are to the website of the U.S. National Archives, which for the time being at least is still an amazing authority on the history of these documents and their online presentation is exceptional.   

Enjoy! And enjoy the three-day weekend.

You Have Nothing to Fear From Islam

Charlie Reese---who is in my mind not exactly a bastion of liberal thought--- explains why in this article.  One of the better points he makes is this one:

If Muslims really desired to conquer the world, don't you think it's strange that we've been living in peace with them for nearly a millennium and a half, except for those times when we attacked them (the Crusades, the European colonial movement and our invasion of Iraq)? Don't forget either that some of the countries the Bush administration calls allies are themselves Muslim – Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The moral of the story is simple: if you're afraid that if we pulled out of Iraq, the Arab hordes would swim to our shores and knife us in our sleep, relax, it's not going to happen.  What you should worry about more is the fact that our government is presenting that idea as a foregone conclusion--which it cannot be since it hasn't happened.

Being prepared and willing to defend our soil is one thing.  Swallowing government propoganda is another. The first can be defended on principle, but not the second.

At the very least, the article is worth the five minutes it takes to read.  Enjoy!

Democrats Push 'Net Neutrality

From Variety, the most hopeful news I've heard all year (the whole 10 days):

Democrats push 'Net neutrality

Internet Freedom Preservation Act is introduced

By WILLIAM TRIPLETT

WASHINGTON -- Democrats, who all but sank major communications reform legislation in the previous congressional session over the issue of so-called 'Net neutrality, marked the first day of the new Congress by introducing a bill that will mandate 'Net neutrality, which is intended to guarantee the equal accessibility and flow of content over the Internet.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), "would ensure that broadband service providers do not discriminate against Internet content, applications or services by offering preferential treatment," according to a statement by Dorgan.

Without a federal mandate for 'Net neutrality, Dorgan said, broadband providers could be "gatekeepers capable of deciding which content can get through to consumers, and which content providers could get special deals, faster speeds and better access to the consumer."

The bill "marks another step toward ensuring the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers," Snowe said in a statement. "The tide has turned in the debate between those who seek to maintain equality and those who would benefit from the creation of a toll road on the Internet superhighway."

Last year, the GOP-controlled Senate tried to move a massive communications reform bill that included changes to national video franchising rules. Democrats tried but failed to attach a 'Net neutrality amendment to the bill while still in committee. While some Republicans supported their effort, Democrats took the lead in threatening a filibuster should the bill come to a floor vote without any provisions for 'Net neutrality. As a result, the bill never made it to the floor.

Legislation requires broadband service providers to operate networks in a nondiscriminatory manner, while leaving them free to protect the security of the network or offer different levels of broadband connection to users.

Consumer groups hailed the bill. "This bill will help ensure that consumers will continue to enjoy the competitive and affordable services that broadband has brought them and that big telecommunications companies cannot use their networks to hinder consumers' access to those services," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, in a statement.

Opponents of 'Net neutrality say a federal mandate is a solution in search of a problem "that doesn't exist," said Peter Davidson, Verizon senior VP for federal government relations.

"Most policymakers will focus on how to increase broadband deployment, and wonder how 'Net regulation advances that goal," Davidson added. "It's ironic that this bill is introduced at the same time the Consumer Electronics Show is filling the news with broadband-enabled innovations. There is a disconnect between consumers' desires for new products and services and the stifling effects of this bill."

Both the Motion Picture Assn. of American and the Recording Industry Assn. of America declined to comment on the bill. Officials at the MPAA have said that member companies are still split over whether 'Net neutrality will be good or bad for business.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Dem Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

A Very Big Deal indeed.  Call/write/e-mail your congressfolk and let them know you want them to support this baby.