The Power Of Prayer

I saw a story on ABC News last night, that triggered my imagination. It seems there are vast networks of prayer agents operating in the United States, sometimes undercover. These groups target prayers, often quite specifically, in hopes that god (our now-common generic name, though in this case it seems God will do) will intercede on their behalf or on the behalf of the prayer target (it's not always clear which).

So I got to thinking about this, and I came to a logical and somewhat startling revelation. Now, I pray frequently (more than Scrooge, less than any devout Muslim), most often with food, and with a real sense of faith (but I admit without any expectation). Most often it's to express thanks (to Jesus and God, those are my peeps), sometimes to provide guidance for myself, and occasionally to protect my wife and sons. In my life I've probably asked God once or twice for something for myself (bargaining, really) or for intercession for a third party. I admit, I never had much faith in the last, and it always seemed a bit distasteful (even icky). My revelation explains why that is.

Here is the logical experiment: first we determine the nature of a god receptive to prayer, and who would intercede in the world; then what that means for that god. This gives us an idea of the value of prayer, in several forms.

First, either there is a god, or there isn't. If there is no god, prayer is useless as a divine communications tool (prayer may still have many other uses, but it won't express thoughts and ideas if the receiver doesn't exist). So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god.

Second, that god must be able to intercede in our human world. If he's unable to do anything about a prayer target, then communication is still incomplete. Even if there were an answer, it would be, "sorry, I can't help you, you'll need to figure this one out for yourself." So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god who can intercede.

Third, god must be willing to intercede. If he won't touch his creation to divinely alter it, then requests for his intercession won't achieve the desired ends. God just won't do it. So the only opening for successful intercessive prayer is with a powerful, willing creator.

Now, this creator is omnipotent, or he's not. Let's assume he is all-powerful. Then he has the ability to create a perfect world. Given that ability, he either has done that, or he hasn't by choice. If he has done that, then the world is perfect, and there is no reason to intercede. But if he deliberately created an imperfect world, he had a reason. We'll explore this momentarily.

A god who is not omnipotent, might not be able to help in every prayer request. After all, for this god there are impossible tasks. It is also possible that he cannot create an ideal world ever. Plus, this god might not even want to change his creation at the request of a few human beings. So intercessive prayer in this situation is fraught with chance and danger. So while it might help humanity, it also might hurt, and there is arguement to not engage in that type of prayer, or at least make damn sure there's no hubris or arrogance in such a request.

So the only time it is reasonable to believe that intercessive prayer will have a positive divine outcome, is if there is an omnipotent creator, who has created an imperfect existence for humanity, and who is willing to aquiesce to the requests of those very humans he has placed in that existence. But why would such a god do that?

Either he wants us to ask for his help, or he wants us to fix the world ourselves. If he wants us to ask for his help, great, but if he jumps in, he only shows us how ineffective we humans are. I doubt he wants that. Perhaps he wants us to seek his guidance. I think that is a noble request in prayer, but it is also presumptuous to think any of us can ask god to provide that guidance for a third party who may or may not even want it. That's a two-party request; I can ask god to guide me, but it is folly and an insult to god to suggest he give it to someone else (who's to say he hasn't already).

So to even engage in prayers asking for god's intercession on behalf of a third party (beyond protection), is in essence an insult to god. It's mighty pretentious, and dismissive of the power and love embodied in the essence of God (yes, with a "G"). After all, either he's not going to answer anyway; or by answering, he's admitting fault with the universe, and responsibility for fixing it.

So basically asking God to jump in and help "guide" another person, or more boldly take specific divine action to intervene (for reasons other than protection), assumes the person praying has a better grasp of the situation than God, and that that person knows what is right for someone else; basically God's will for that person. That smacks of selfishness and arrogance.

Additionally, how is it that a massive group prayer has any more attention from God than the quietest plea whispered by the smallest child? Such a belief would be a wholly human construct, based on "Might Makes Right," and outside the teachings of Jesus Christ. More likely, any god who would be inclined to intercede for humanity would probably just take offense at such action, and answer the little kid first.

In any case, it defines the phrase, "Holier Than Thou."

To me, that's what makes it so icky.

Come One, Come All

The United Church of Christ made an ad. In the Ad, some people going to church are denied entrance at the door. The message of the UCC: everyone is welcome with us.

Now the three major networks are refusing to air the ad. ABC gets let off the hook here; they have a policy that they don’t air any religious advertising. Fair enough. But NBC and CBS have no such policy, and NBC refused to air the ad because it is “too controversial.” CBS has a policy barring advocacy advertisements, and they consider this message to be just that.

Baloney.

“You are welcome in our church, whoever you are,” is not a message of advocacy. It is an invitation to inclusion in god’s love (not capitalized as this is a broader context). Making pageant contestants eat nasty things is more controversial.

So why did the networks refuse to air the ad? Is UCC money no good? Are marginalized people actually not welcome in the house of god? Maybe the networks are afraid of the publicity they will get? Ahh, I think we’re on to something…

I think the networks are running scared. I think they think there’s good reason to be scared. I think they’re right.

See, they could be fined boatloads of money by the FCC if they air the ads (or so they think). They think that the FCC will crack down on broadcast content that it finds offensive or inappropriate. They think this ad is exactly what the FCC is referring to when they label content “offensive or inappropriate.” Again, I think they are right.

But it isn’t the FCC that is making the call. I think the networks know that. They think the real content standard-bearers are the religious right, specifically conservative Christians (I don’t think they deserve a capitalized “Christ,” but I think Christ does). But it’s not just me. Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister of the United Church of Christ, quoted in the Washington Post, thinks so too; “Rather than uphold a kind of freedom of the airwaves, they're deciding it's wiser to censor some perspectives than to court reaction from the right.”

Meanwhile, since the controversy began a week ago, the UCC has had 70,000 online inquiries from visitors to locate a nearby UCC congregation.

And every one of them is welcome.

The Nature Of An Iceberg

Yes, I backdated this post. I mostly composed it last week, just didn't get to put it on the Moose-Blog (Thanksgiving and all). Plus, I wasn't sure it needed to be said.

See, I thought my feelings on the Pacers-Pistons would be a small voice whispering softly in the deep wilderness. One that had to be expressed forthwith, so as not to be lost in the cacophony of innuendo, accusation, and outrage. But that voice was louder than I foresaw. I got a surprise when I heard something I didn't expect, from someone I didn't know to expect it from. On the Best Damn Sports Show, Tom Arnold laid the blame for the incident on the fans.

To be fair, Chris, Tom-Tom (we Iowa boys go way back), Salley and Cox all agreed on this point to varying degrees (not that Chris comments on the issue so much as drops the conversational puck). None of them gave Ron Artest a pass; they all said he should have refrained from entering the stands (I agree). They all said Stephen Jackson was as culpable as Artest (I agree). They all agreed that Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal should get long suspensions, in the 25-30 game range (I agree).

But they also pointed out that if not for a cowardly act on the part of a Pistons Season-Ticket holder, this might have all gone for naught. John Green, the cup-thrower, is also the guy who got in the sucker punches on Artest while others were trying to restrain him. Interestingly, Green has the same thing Artest has, in the context of this fight; they both have reputations that precede them. The main difference is, as the video shows, Green started it.

He could have left well enough alone, but he didn't. Bryant Jackson (another reputable fellow) could have not thrown the chair, but he threw it. Charlie Haddad could have not gone on the court, but he did.

Those were my thoughts, too. But I don't blame them (here comes that voice from the wilderness). I really don't think Tom blames them either (at least, not completely). Now, Pappy always said it's better to fix the problem than to fix the blame, but the only one who can fix the problem, well, he's also the one to blame.

I blame David Stern.

You may have just bumped your jaw on the coffee table, maybe the floor, maybe your desk (please don't let it be your steering wheel). Though I cannot correct your mandibular alignment, let me explain my comment.

I don't think any of these guys had a choice. They were willingly sold on the image of spirited fans loudly driving their team to victory. They were sold on the idea that the fans make a difference; after all, it's not called neutral-field advantage. They were told that alcohol is part and parcel of the game experience (OK, that's bigger than Stern), and at the Palace, this means all four quarters (now that's something Stern could do something about). They did their civic duty (is there such a thing as "uncivic duty?"). Heck, Chris Ballard in the Nov. 29 Sports Illustrated points out that Artest is one of those guys who can go into a white rage, where he doesn't even recall what happened, sort of a Jeckyll & Hyde syndrome. They all just did what any behavioral expert could predict they would do. They don't chart their direction, they just go with the flow. Like an iceberg.

But the NBA, that course can be set, and Stern did so many years ago. When the league could have charted a course for quality product, Stern instead chose hype. Basketball is ultimately about scoring more points than your opponent. But NBA fans don't come for the scoring. They come for the dunking. The in-your-face, I-am-better-than-you pissing contest that is fueled by testosterone. Basketball is a team sport. But the NBA markets its individuals. It is all about Kobe, Shaq, Artest, T-Mac (there aren't as many one-namers in any other sport, or in the entertainment industry, for that matter). If it was about team, Jamaal Tinsley would be the #1 star in Indy, LeBron highlights would all be passes, John Stockton would be the guy with his own Nike clothing line and cologne. Like Captain Smith on the Titanic, Stern long ago boldly set the course for this "unsinkable" ship.

Want more evidence? Take early entry. Sure, LeBron is ready for the NBA at 18. But for every LeBron, there are a dozen guys who blow off a college education and a chance to develop in the college ranks because they were going straight to the pros (I can't think of any of their names, but that's the point; they're ghosts). Why are headcases so rare in the NFL, where testosterone and physicality are deliberately ramped up for performance? Because degree or not, every NFL player has demonstrated that he can at least enroll in college and pass 12 credit hours per semester, no matter how easy (it still takes discipline). Early entry allows boys into the NBA, not-yet-men emotionally and mentally.

Also, who is the market for Stern's NBA? Take a look at who is wearing the jerseys of their favorite players. Look at the sizes on the tags. If you're older than twelve, chances are you won't fit in them. The NBA wants you to buy the jersey for your kid, then take the kid to the game, and buy the $8 beers while you're there. They also want all of this activity instigated by the kid.

Sure, there are unruly fans in every professional sport, but those leagues have somehow realized that they are seating adults at the park, and that there need to be some proximity limits for the fans and the athletes. At NBA venues, it's like they expect 20,000 kids in the seats.

Not an iceberg.

And why is it that icebergs sink "unsinkable" ships? Funny you should ask. See, icebergs wreck ships below the waterline. Where they are invisible. Where 90% of an iceberg exists.

So, if the Detroit Scuffle is the iceberg we do see, what is the iceberg we don't see?

Captain Stern, to the lifeboats!

Changing The Damn Channel

The FCC is looking into complaints that the opening to last Monday's MNF (Monday Night Football) was somehow not suitable for network television.

Last week 66 ABC affiliates refused to air Saving Private Ryan for fear that the FCC would impose historically large fines for profanity unedited from the theatrical version of the film which ABC broadcast.

That's why I admire Larry Flynt.

See, Flynt stands at the forefront of the battle for free speech. He fights for the right to say what is unpopular, inelegant, and downright nasty. And without him, we wouldn't have that right. Or the right to say what others may call offensive. Or maybe the right to say anything at all, except maybe to shout praises to god during soccer games.

For 224 years, America stood for the right of her citizens to express their beliefs, opinions, agreement, dissent, and whimsy. Since 2001, it seems that has changed. The Uneasy Queasy Call It Sleazy Crowd has been taking over the conversation about Conversation. They claim to support the right of anyone to express an opinion, but quietly demand that the opinion be in line with their own. They seek to wrest control of decency standards from the local communities to create a national policy. They use decency standards not to protect those who are unable to properly process harsh or frightful images, but to quash debate for political gain. They have co-opted the vocabulary of victimization to accomplish this task. They claim it is their free speech which is impeded, until such claims saturate our society (hardly legitimizing said complaint).

Trouble is, their demonstrated goal for America is profoundly more dangerous than the forms of speech from which they seek to protect us. While the expression of "unwholesome" speech of any kind can lead to all the societal ills to which the Don't Say Boobies Contingent says they will, it is also entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they won't. Sure, society could crumble under the weight of such weighty ideas, but it hasn't so far—and trust me, these "indecent" ideas have been around almost as long as the media used to communicate them, including cave paint. So I doubt society is in any real danger from indecency.

But the control of ideas, the bottlenecking of thought, will break society. At least democratic society. That's because democracy, like any form of government, relies upon an informed sovereign, that can make decisions based on facts, logic, and open communication. And in a democracy, the people are the sovereign. So the people need to be informed. That means fully informed; all the ideological marketplace available to all the electorate. Warts and all.

I suspect the 66 ABC affiliates are actually voicing dissent on the recent FCC escalation for decency violations. I think they are saying, "Hey, people of our media market, if you sit back and complacently allow extremist thought police to dictate the rules for broadcast communication, you may lose something very important to America, and to a particular valiant group of Americans. You may lose everything the men of Omaha Beach fought and died for. And you may lose it to folks whose ideology is so very much akin to that which they fought against. Just remember that it is your fight. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." At least I hope so.

As for the MNF thing, well, if that offends you, I have one piece of advice; Change The Damn Channel. Or turn off the *@#&^% TV.

Just To Keep Things Fresh

I haven't posted anything in awhile.

I just haven't had anything to add for about a week.

There are some ruminations floating around in the ol' noggin, but nothing concrete, or even hardening at this time.

I'm sure there will be something soon.

Youth Voted.

There are a lot of reports out there dismissing the youth vote, and stating flatly that youth didn't show up. They can't be furtheer from the truth. Lisa Chamberlain reports in Salon that the facts and numbers tell a different story.

Truth is, we long-time progressives (along with the blissfully ignorant American moderate block) let these young people down. We didn't show up, or we went home because the line was too long, or we let Uncle Dick's stories of the Bogeyman scare us into voting for the village idiot.

John Kerry got 5 million more votes than Al Gore did in 2000. That's a 10% increase in total Democratic vote. Hey, pretty good, right? Think again. The Scourge Of The Texas Rangers got a 9 million vote jump—18%! Now, doing some calculations based on how many more 18-29 year-olds voted, and that they shifted from 50-50 in 2000 to almost 60% Kerry in 2004, and we find that the youngest demographic block (18-24) boosted the Democratic vote by about 1.6 million votes cast, roughly a third of the Democratic vote increase. 18-29 Democratic votes increased by a total of over 3 million from 2000. Certainly they did their part.

That still leaves two million new Democratic votes from the 30+ crowd, over what Gore got, right? Sure, sure, but note that that is an increase of under 5%. Overall U. S. population growth can account for that.

So one of two things happened: either the Republicans turned out tons more folks than they did in 2000, or they got a bunch of Gore voters to go Bush in '04 (the third case, rampant voter fraud, has no incontrovertible evidence at this time).

Either way, shame on us.

Straight For The Heart

Paul Freedman at Slate makes a good case that Terrorism was the real deciding issue in the election. It just might be so. But whether it's "moral values" or terrorism, one thing is certain: the better man for the job based on either criteria lost.

Don't get me wrong. Josef Göeb--er, Karl Rove did a great job rallying the people behind Orwellian slogans and cryptic buzzwords. After all, they repeatedly assert their superior ability to read the people, over in that far-right crowd. Perhaps they actually do a better job knowing the people, perhaps just simplifying their arguements. I think they just learned a long time ago a fundamental truth that liberals and progressives have always known, never forgotten, and never missed an opportunity to lord over the illiterate masses who don't understand: they cannot win an ideological battle for the minds of the people. The progressive arguement is just too compelling. From a neck-up standpoint, belief in the cause of the left is inevitable.

But the demagogues of the right did something back then, that progressives must do now: suck it up and move on, prefereably with a new and better strategy for winning the political arena. They did it by changing strategy; they stopped trying to win people's minds, and started trying to win people's hearts (more on how they won America's heart later). And it has worked beyond any measure that could be anticipated. They are in control of Congress, the Presidency, and soon the Supreme Court. And now it's time for these folks to put their money where their collective mouth is. In other words, to step in it big-time.

See, the issue is not whether these guys are truly more morally centered, or tougher on terrorism, but that they told the people so, and in such a way as to make a majority of them believe it. But because they were successful in selling the brand, now they face the inevitable backlash when the product doesn't live up to the hype (Think XFL). Here is the conversation:

"Hey, I thought you guys were tough on terror! So how come there's more terrorists now than there were before 9/11?"

"I thought you cared about the small business owner! How come it's less affordable for me to run my shop now than it was under Clinton?"

"You said you wanted to give me tax relief, but my tax relief is less taxable wages! What gives?"

"You said you value human life! So why can't Gramma get affordable medicine? And how come the cure for Uncle Pete's palsy comes from Switzerland?"

We'll see how the second season goes.

Meanwhile, the left has been struck by proverbial lightning. See, now we know how to win the body politic. We know the people need to know our hearts. They need to know that the Democratic leadership "feels their pain." They need to know that there is real concern there, that their best interests are shared by the Democrats in office. I know already that it's there, that's why I voted Democrat, but there is still a hard sell for the American people. But there are two distinct advantages for the Democrats.

First, there isn't a whole lot of selling to do. Between 45% and 50% of Americans in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa and New Mexico are already sold. Plus the 47% in Florida and 49% in Ohio that see the light. That's 103 electoral votes essentially up for grabs. And Arizona and North Carolina aren't far behind. So all it takes is 10% of the old brand buyers switching their moral detergent, to get that critical majority market share. And a sweeping call for a new direction in a bold, forthright America that will clean up it's mess and walk the talk on "moral values."

Which brings up the second big advantage. Our product is a far superior stain remover.

Get scrubbin'.

Old Sayings

An old saying is credited to the Chinese, that translated as well as is possible states, "May you live in interesting times." Certainly we do.

Knowing that Yasser Arafat has not died, it may be possible that when he eventually does pass on, there may be another, new old saying: "May you die like Arafat." Meaning, may there be levity, comedy, and a general sense of lightness upon your demise. I certainly would like that.

Given as seriously as people take themselves, however, I suspect the adage will be more akin to, "May you not die like Arafat."

Too bad.

Thinking About Commitment

Eleven states did something that none of them needed to do, and that none would ever find benefit from doing: they banned gay marriage.

See, the thing is, what is marriage? At least in terms of the law, what is the purpose of marriage? When people get married, what is it they are doing, and what is the impression to be created for all parties involved?

First, most marriages are a declaration before God, however the two parties involved choose to worship God. I will call God "God," because that is the name my faith provides. Others may call God "Allah," "Yahweh," "Ganesh," or "Stinky." Not my business, and not the government's either.

And that's germane to my next point. As far as the function of marriage within the governmental structure of the law, it is seen as a binding legal agreement between two consenting parties, that carries certain legal obligations, and provides certain legal rights, to each party, upon occurrence of certain events, such as divorce, birth, adoption, and death of one party. It serves to form a union of two individuals, into one legal entity, as a part of civil law. Essentially, in the eyes of the law, all marriages are "civil unions."

Now, some marriages do not involve religious ritual, and are legalized through court action, usually by an officer of the court, like a J. P. In essence, this makes these marriages strictly "civil unions," which is really the legal terminology for any marriage.

So if all marriages are really just civil unions in the eyes of the law, then what audience actually sees, accepts, and assists to declare a "marriage?" The simple explanation is that the religious community present at the ceremony does. And most marriages are conducted within the space of a religious organization, or by an official of some religious denomination. So these declarations to the community and before God (or at least his representative) are the substance of marriage.

So why is it that we can't legally ban gay marriage? Well, we can, but the ban is a religious one, not a civil one. Any religion can define marriage as a covenant only allowable between one man and one woman. There. Gay marriage banned.

But any other religion can declare marriage to be a covenant of commitment to two individuals, regardless of gender, to maintain monogamous relations, unified households, or any other obligations that can be put upon marriages. And that more open religion is just as legitimate for doing so as one that chooses a stricter definition of "marriage." That's because of religious freedom in America, declared in the Constitution.

But the Constitution has another clause, written into the fourteenth amendment, that guarantees "equal protection of the laws." It is written in such a way as to broadly define what it is to be a member of a class of people, and also to guarantee that one class of people shall have all the rights guaranteed to any other class of people. And since civil union provides rights of property, power of attorney, inheritance, and many more to heterosexual couples, it is a strong argument provided in the Constitution that these same rights are also protected and provided to members of the class of people called homosexual.

No one else can force their religion on me, and I cannot force my religion upon them. I cannot deny another the opportunity to practice religion according to their beliefs, nor can they deny me. But the government is not in the beliefs business, so what is provided under law to some, must be available by law to all.

So Constitutionally, the United States is actually already bound to uphold the right of any religious denomination to disallow gay marriage; but is equally bound to protect the rights of any class of people, to form civil unions for the benefits afforded by such partnerships, including gay couples.

And in each case, that is conveniently the way most people like it.

To The "Moral Values" Crowd

OK. I get it. We get it.

I always thought it was kitschy and quaint, this idea of moral values being important. I thought, we thought, that it was this mildly annoying block of red voters that were unwilling to change, unwilling to examine the issues, unwilling to make an informed decision. Yes, they were votes to be overcome, but the numbers were easily surmountable.

I, we, all get it now. Those of us who consider ourselves reasoned, intelligent, educated people, liberals because liberal is where education and knowledge unavoidably leads us, we see the light. When we abandoned “liberal” for the now-less-pejorative “progressive,” we didn’t get it. But we do now, and since I do get it, I am once again proud to call myself a “liberal.” Even though I'm actually likely not, or maybe just a little. You think that’s a bad thing? In America, that’s your right.

We understand now the words Mark McKinnon said to Ron Suskind:

''You think [President Bush] is an idiot, don't you? ...you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by the
folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''

We dismissed McKinnon when we read that, but we don’t now. We see that you are legion.

You are out there, and 58 million of you voted Tuesday, chose to make “moral values” the central issue of the election, not the bungling of Iraq, the deceit and secrecy of this administration, not the economy, or health care, or loyalty oaths, or energy policy. You felt that moral values were the central issue to this campaign. Fine. Nothing wrong with that.

But let me tell you now, it doesn’t matter to me if you are 58 million, or 100 million, or 299 million. I don’t care. If I was the last human being on the planet holding out for liberal values, I still don’t care. Stone me, marginalize me, dismiss me, eradicate me. Your moral values would probably command it. But whatever you do, I will never accept your worldview. Mainly because of one thing it doesn’t have: real moral values.

So you want to make moral values the issue of 2004? How about the value of duty? One thing is certain, no matter how John Kerry got injured, no matter where he was Christmas Eve, no matter how he got injured to earn three Purple Hearts: he got the injuries in Vietnam. He was in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War. He served in combat. And if he did bump anyone else in line for Vietnam, I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. When America asked for sacrifice, he was willing to take that risk.

And what of the value of conscience? When he had heard horror stories of the war in Vietnam, he felt the need to speak out against what was then and still is considered today to be an unjust war. He would not stand idly by while men in power abused that power to terrible results. He showed conscience. And he made it clear that though he won’t hesitate to use American military force to secure freedom and safety for Americans, he wouldn’t do it if he genuinely feels more diplomatic solutions are available. Last resort, not carelessly, on “bad intelligence” (mad belligerence is more like it).

How about the moral value of leadership? The kind that stands before a democracy openly and honestly makes policy, earnestly creates alliances, tells the people the truth? Not the misleading, obfuscational nonsense that seeks to divide and demoralize the electorate, to paralyze the sovereign voter with fear, to whitewash the real issues? One candidate had that leadership. He showed it in 1971. In 1984. In 1991. In 2002. In 2004. And especially, yesterday morning.

Honesty, openness, integrity. Diversity, acceptance, tolerance. Those are moral values. Peacemaking. Charity. Love.

Enfranchisement.

You see, those are my moral values. To me, and to all the other people in America who are now ready to proudly take back “liberal” for themselves, those are the real moral values. Real moral values to us, they don’t equal where someone puts his genitals, or who he allows to do the putting. Real moral values are a hell of a lot more than that. Real moral values include caring for your fellow man, no matter his race or creed. Respecting people’s privacy in their own homes, when consenting adults are involved. Providing a helping hand to those less fortunate. Basically, believing in what Jesus taught, much more than the sweet fairy tale literally shackled to your mentality, or the divisive, bigoted fear-based authoritarian you cling to like religious heroin. That’s the junk your leadership has been shoveling on you for years. And somehow it worked. Apparently, we can get fooled again.

You think we don’t get you. Tuesday, you were right. Today, different story. Times change, circumstances change, people change. You and your beloved leader would be wise to understand that. Because, you see, while we finally get you, see you, comprehend you, understand you, you still just don’t get us. The difference is that you don’t want to. You are much happier just to go on not liking us, believing in your moral superiority, just like Mark McKinnon says. But he’s only half right. See, we are legion too. And we are getting stronger. Every day the scales fall from the eyes of those who would despise us or look indifferently on us or simply tolerate us, and they become us. They see the difference more and more each day between talking about a vague undefined idea of moral values, and standing up for the real moral values they can clearly identify. They finally tire of the stonewalling and fear-mongering of your conversation, and they see the world for what it is: a search for truth, not a prepackaged snake-oil sales pitch of truth.

We just didn’t show up.

But that won’t happen again. The stakes were too high Tuesday, but they are even higher now. Because now, our very democracy is at stake. Our freedom of speech, of thought, of dissent, is surely about to be assailed. Our civil liberties are at stake. And of all my set of moral values, civil liberties is the biggest for me. For a lot of us. Lucky for you. Because if it weren’t, you could never have become legion in the first place. If I and my liberal allies were the closed-minded, self-interested, dissent-crushing kettle that your pot calls us, it would have been done already. But we afford you your civil rights. Not because we agree with you, not because your cause has merit, not because you are somehow superior to us. You’re not. But we give you the microphone because it is your right. But I will tell you now, we are no longer going to allow you to forget that it is our right just as much as yours.

You got us, you got us good. We overestimated ourselves, and we underestimated you. So enjoy your victory. While you whoop it up, we’re back at work, building our legion, growing every day. And if your leadership doesn’t see that, they will be relegated to the margins of history. Because there’s a rematch coming, we won’t underestimate you again, and we’ve already got the date circled on the calendar.

Your leaders wanted a culture war, well, they got it. Maybe you want one too. Maybe you think your moral values give you moral authority to define freedom, liberty, and justice in America. Maybe you think we still just don’t get it, and that we still don’t get you. Maybe you still believe that you’ve got our number, that we’ll roll over again. In that case, I have just three words for you.

Bring It On.

Thank You

I apologize for the delay. I have had some loose ends to tie up, but that looks to be settled. I sincerely want to thank all of you who put forth so much time and effort in the campaign for our progressive candidates, from the Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina to the local and county candidates. No we didn't get the grand prize, or the next two, but we got some wins for our candidates, and that is good.

Please do not lose faith. Just because it didn't arrive on Tuesday, is no reason to give up hope. Because Hope is still on the way.

GOTV Update

The IC25 PLT had a meeting last night, with several volunteers in attendance. We discussed the plan for the weekend GOTV, and the schedule for Tuesday. Monday activities are mostly coordinated from the county level, so anyone who wants to get involved in Monday activities, including the Midnight Madness, go to the JCDHQ.

For any GOTV door-knocking or phone banking on Saturday or Sunday, to get a list of target individuals, come to my house at 226 Friendship, and I will give you a list of targets appropriately sized for your available time. Hopefully we will be able to canvass or call everyone on the list. There is already a large precinct turnout for absentee and satellite voting.

Our Precinct Goal is 533 votes from our list of voters and other votes for our candidate. We have also set internal number goals of 633 and 733 votes. Even the super shocker 733 for our precinct is an attainable goal for the election.

Secondly, Karen is our head of Special Ops, as the Ballot Czar. She is chasing down all outstanding ballots for the precinct, so that all requested absentee ballots get returned to the Auditor's office. Karen also wants to remind everyone that failing to return an absentee ballot to the auditor is against the law, so make sure you get your vote in.

We still need Poll Watchers for Tuesday, from 5:00 to 9:00 PM. If you can or would like to assist in this capacity for some or all of that time, please let me know (you can add a comment to any post on the blog; I check for comments every time I post). We will also need people Tuesday for door-knocking (knock-&-drag), phone banking, and other support positions for our efforts. Please let me know if you can help in any way, even if it's watching over kids or making coffee.

Thanks to everyone who is giving to the effort to change the direction of America. It is time for a fresh start.

Meeting Tonight

This time I mean it!

Yes, there will be a strategy meeting for the GOTV final push, at my house tonight at 8:00. The address, if you need reminding, is 226 Friendship St. I will also be doing some last-minute canvassing leading up to the meeting; if anyone else wants to join the fun, be at my house at 6:50.

We will talk about our IC25 GOTV Magic Number of 533, where we stand today, and what we hold as our ultimate Precinct Internal Number Goal (PING).

Please, I cannot stess this enough, bring along anyone that you know who wishes to volunteer or help out in any way. This goes so far as to recruit young people to watch over small children, so parents can get out to help the effort. Just because they can't vote, doesn't mean they can't make a difference.

We'll need everyone we can get for this weekend, Monday, and Tuesday, plus about half again. Many hands make light work.

GOTV Goal

Our IC25 GOTV vote goal is 533. We are shooting for 533 votes for our candidate by 9:00 PM on Tuesday, 11/2.

We will be continuing efforts to GOTV (Get Out The Vote), now through next Tuesday. Our next event is a meeting at my house, 226 Friendship, tonight at 6:00. That is to organize our leadership team, and plan our various courses of action to GOTV for our slate, for victory in 2004. If you cannot come at 6:00, come at 7:30 (or whenever you can).

We will meet again before Saturday, when official statewide GOTV efforts begin in earnest. We will have a designated voter list targeting those voters that we need to get to the polls or collect absentee ballots from, disseminated by the field office.

Thank you all for all the time and effort you have given and will give for this important election.

Welcome to the IC25 PLT

This may be the best way to communicate to the PLT the actions we will take between now and Nov. 2 to GOTV. If you are not in IC25, you are free to keep updated as to what we are doing, but this blog may become confusing as all hell.

First, if we can have a PLT meeting tomorrow noght, at my house, that would be great. If not everyone can meet at my house at the same time, it would still be great to have everyone stop by at some time Tuesday night.

If you can make it at 6:30, great. If you can make it at 8:00, great. Try to make at least one time.

Feel free to make comments on this or any other post to the Blog. That will further our communication abilities even more.

Anyway, Lloyd, Peter, Karen, and myself attended GOTV training Saturday 10/23, and Andreya also attended and signed up to be part of the PLT. Lloyd, Peter, Karen, and I appointed Peter to be the Poll Boss, the head of the Poll Watching staff for Election Day. Karen is continuing with GOTV efforts targeting the "soft" Kerry/Edwards supporters (also thanks to Christine and Janet for their efforts with this over the weekend), and We all have further efforts planned for the 'base' list of registered Democrats in IC25.

For anyone who is available and interested, I still have Base lists for three of the 12 Precinct Zones; Columbia, Heron, and Hastings (Mostly the North side of IC25). If someone has a couple hours to volunteer, it is an exciting opportunity to meet some of the other progressive minds of IC25.

Final Push GOTV efforts will start Saturday, October 30, and continue through Tuesday, November 2, at 9:30 PM (Polls close at 9:00, but the effort lives on).

Victory will be celebrated at the First Avenue Club, 1550 S. 1st Avenue, but none of us should be able to make it there before 9:30 PM.

Thanks to everyone on the IC25 PLT for all your effort and time. This means everything to a generation of America.

Find out more about Granny D

She walked across America at 89 to publicize campaign finance reform.

At 94, Granny D is running for Senate.

Check out this guy.

Sivacracy is great.

Welcome to Moose-Blog

With no map, we drive.

Where will we end up?