The animosity Sarah Palin showed as mayor of Wasilla against the village librarian isn’t just a case of a personal feud or a problem with a few books. At its core, Sarah Palin’s attempt to intimidate the village librarian into censoring books from the Wasilla library is a problem because of the authoritarian and theocratic philosophy it reflects.
The practice of banning books, as Sarah Palin tried to do, is founded upon the idea that books are dangerous things that pollute the minds of the people who read them. Sarah Palin believes that it’s a good idea for the government to control the books that people read, because Sarah Palin believes that the government knows better than the American people what ideas are good for them.
Not just any government, of course. Sarah Palin hates the idea of the constitutional democracy established back in the 1700s at the birth of the USA with the Bill of Rights. Palin can’t stand the idea of the separation of church and state, or the right to a free press.
No, the kind of government that Sarah Palin seeks to lead is a theocratic government, in which fundamentalist Christian religion uses the federal government of the United States to force its beliefs on everyone else. She wants her religious beliefs taught in public school science classes. She wants libraries to ban the reading of books that don’t support her extremist right wing version of Christianity. Like the ayatollahs of Iran, Sarah Palin wants to ban books.
Unfortunately, a large segment of the population of the United States agrees with Sarah Palin. They love the idea of censoring books and other forms of free speech. They believe that it’s the government’s job to protect people from dissent.
Sound the warning that Sarah Palin, who would likely inherit the presidency from an elderly President John McCain, is an authoritarian who has no respect for the foundations of American liberty. Put this bumper sticker on your car to warn against the book burners for Palin.
What with Barack Obama breaking his promise to actively oppose the FISA Amendments Act, I’m pretty downhearted about the Senator as a presidential candidate. The Constitution is kind of sort of the core document of our nation and all, and if he won’t protect and defend it, what can we depend on him to do?
This is the closest I can come to designing a pro-Obama bumper sticker lately:
One of the strongest criticisms of war is that the causes that lead people into war are often betrayed through the course of war. When I use the word “causes”, I’m not talking about things like an effort to recapture a piece of territory. Those are tactics, not causes.
A cause is referred to in the Republican language about the current constellation of military actions: The War On Terror.
The implied cause in this war is an end to terror.
The obvious irony is that the tactics used by the United States government include the infliction of terror. The strategy for the invasion of Iraq, for example, was called “shock and awe”. The idea was to cause so much fear amongst Iraqis that they would give up hope and end resistance to the American invasion and military occupation almost immediately. Five years later, Iraqi resistance is continuing. The tactics of inflicting terror haven’t worked, but they were the admitted tactics of the United States nonetheless.
Then, of course, there’s torture. The Republicans continue to insist that they need to torture, or as they say “use extreme interrogation methods”, in order to defeat terror. They don’t appear to grasp the irony that the very purpose of torture is to increase terror, not to defeat it.
Today was a vital day in the United States Senate. A series of votes on a law (FISA Amendments Act) that would allow the White House to send spy against Americans using electronic networks like the Internet and cell phone systems - and to do it without giving any reason, not even making the claim that the American citizens being spied on are suspected with a crime.
Barack Obama went to the floor of the United States Senate. He stood up to George W. Bush and his anti-American spying programs. He voted in favor of several efforts to remove the unjust provisions of the electronic spying law.
What did Hillary Clinton do? She just walked away from the Senate. Hillary Clinton did not even bother to show up to vote. Hillary Clinton left
Politicians like Hillary Clinton need a reminder that government spying against Americans is unAmerican. If Hillary Clinton will not show up to do her job in the Senate to defend us from government spying, then she no longer deserves the support of voters - not for her campaign for President, and not to be re-elected to the Senate either.
Homeland Security says it’s going to protect us from terrorist evildoers. The truth is, though, that Homeland Security could not even stop a man from taking hostages and threatening to blow up a campaign office of Hillary Clinton. That terrorist attack took place in New Hampshire, right here in the United States of America, and Homeland Security knew nothing about it until it was too late.
I would feel sorry for Brian Higgins, if he weren’t such a low-down, craven political coward.
Over the weekend, Higgins voted to give additional powers to Alberto Gonzales - even though Alberto Gonzales has been caught lying to Congress and abusing his power for political purposes. As a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Upstate New York, Brian Higgins ought to know better than to join in with the likes of George W. Bush to help push through an attack against the Bill of Rights. Higgins ought to know better, but his political instincts seem to be getting mighty rusty.
Brian Higgins voted for a rotten law called the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act removes enforcement of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, effectively killing an essential part of the Bill of Rights. Under the new law, Alberto Gonzales is given the power to start spy operations against Americans without a search warrant and without any supervision or control. The law Higgins voted for specifically contradicts the Fourth Amendment, which demands that searches only be approved by warrant backed up by oath or affirmation, and requires that searches only be authorized for specific targets. The Protect America Act allows Alberto Gonzales to send out spies to read Americans’ email and listen to their telephone calls in blatant violation of these requirements.
The Progressive Directory of the USA compares the support that one New York Democrat, Michael Arcuri, has received as a result of his vote against the Protect America Act, with the opposition among grassroots Democrats Brian Higgins has provoked because of his vote with the Republicans in favor of the Protect America Act.
You reap what you sow, Congressman Higgins.
There already were these bumper stickers criticizing Brian Higgins - in a progressive bumper sticker catalog, no less. As a Democrat, Brian Higgins ought to be receiving support from such sources… if he were actually a progressive, which he isn’t. So, Brian Higgins is rightfully coming under attack from fellow Democrats.
Given the terrible record Higgins has in Congress, it seems that the New York State Democrats would be better off without him.
Many people who value authority for the sake of authority recoil at the idea of rebellion, believing that to disobey is a moral outrage in itself. Frederick Douglass, as a former slave, had a different perspective on the idea of rebellion.
Douglass could understand the negative ramifications of rebellion: The disorder and the possibility of destruction. However, he was able to remember that the alternative to rebellion is often tyranny. Rebellion is not the natural state of human affairs. People don’t have an inherent urge to defy people in power. On the contrary, most people prefer to get along and not cause trouble.
Rebellion does not just happen. Rebellion is provoked. It is important to remember that, as, Frederick Douglass explained, “The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion.”
Torture is a moral issue - this slogan surely has its roots back in the presidential campaign of 2004, when the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush won re-election based on so-called “moral issues”. Progressives took outrage when the mainstream news media started repeating this claim uncritically.
How was it that only the right wingers were described as having values, or caring about moral issues. It was absurd. So, it seems that this bumper is responding to that absurdity by making the moral claim plain and simple.
Torture is a moral issue, and that’s why this month has been dedicated as Torture Awareness Month, with June 26 marked by the United Nations General Assembly as International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.
On June 26, there will be discussions, vigils, and anti-torture demonstrations in observance of International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Please consider being among the participants.
Here’s a bumper sticker that finally makes the identity for the Chris Dodd for President clear: Christopher Dodd is the candidate for liberty in 2008.
There’s good reason to link Christopher Dodd with the restoration of American liberty. It’s Chris Dodd who has introduced the most serious, comprehensive legislation to repeal the outrageous anti-liberty Military Commissions Act. Only one other candidate than Chris Dodd has co-sponsored the legislation by Senator Diane Feinstein to close the gulags of Guantanamo Bay.
Still, Dodd has a bit of credibility to make up for when it comes to his past support for Joseph Lieberman, who is no friend to liberty. Time will tell how well the Dodd for President campaign is able to reframe the political image its candidate.
