Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
« November 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Bush and his paranoia
Concerning America today
You are not logged in. Log in
ON THE RAMPAGE
Monday, April 4, 2005
In Memory of My Parents
Dear Readers,

In what now seems an unbelievable series of events, my irreplaceable parents Raymond B. Mansfield and Thora E. Mansfield have both left this world.

My father died on January 21 and my mother died on March 15; in just seven short weeks I lost two of the most important people in my life. And they were two of the most loving, giving, generous, wise, intelligent and wonderful parents that a man could ever be fortunate enough to have in his life. I never realized until they are now gone too soon just how much their life long unconditional love and support have meant to me.

My Dad was a life long Democrat and Mom remained a staunch Republican; so political discussions at our home were always lively. I believe that both of them would want me to continue with this Blog; so PLEASE keep sending me items for inclusion.

For now, I am taking some time away to mourn; and visit New York City and see my best friend Mike. So for awhile, ON THE RAMPAGE will be on hiatus. Please remember me in your prayers during this time of sadness.

Gregory Mansfield

Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 5:06 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, April 4, 2005 5:13 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Friday, February 25, 2005
Truth is Stranger Than Fiction...at the Bush White House

The White House Stages Its 'Daily Show'
February 20, 2005
by FRANK RICH, The New York Times

The prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time.

Let me explain.

On "Countdown," a nightly news hour on MSNBC, the anchor, Keith Olbermann, led off with a classic "Daily Show"-style bit: a rapid-fire montage of sharply edited video bites illustrating the apparent idiocy of those in Washington. In this case, the eight clips stretched over a year in the White House briefing room - from February 2004 to late last month - and all featured a reporter named "Jeff." In most of them, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, says "Go ahead, Jeff," and "Jeff" responds with a softball question intended not to elicit information but to boost President Bush and smear his political opponents. In the last clip, "Jeff" is quizzing the president himself, in his first post-inaugural press conference of Jan. 26. Referring to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, "Jeff" asks, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

If we did not live in a time when the news culture itself is divorced from reality, the story might end there: "Jeff," you'd assume, was a lapdog reporter from a legitimate, if right-wing, news organization like Fox, and you'd get some predictable yuks from watching a compressed video anthology of his kissing up to power. But as Mr. Olbermann explained, "Jeff Gannon," the star of the montage, was a newsman no more real than a "Senior White House Correspondent" like Stephen Colbert on "The Daily Show" and he worked for a news organization no more real than The Onion. Yet the video broadcast by Mr. Olbermann was not fake. "Jeff" was in the real White House, and he did have those exchanges with the real Mr. McClellan and the real Mr. Bush.

"Jeff Gannon's" real name is James D. Guckert. His employer was a Web site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists. Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's "news" often consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site, GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000 Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Mr. Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Mr. Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership."

How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President," is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day. Though Mr. McClellan told Editor & Publisher magazine that he didn't know until recently that Mr. Guckert was using an alias, Bruce Bartlett, a White House veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web site Romenesko, that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." (Otherwise, it would be a rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.)

By my count, "Jeff Gannon" is now at least the sixth "journalist" (four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Mr. Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers - the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports ("In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting," went the script) pretending to "sort through the details" of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such "reports," some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office.

The money that paid for both the Ryan-Garcia news packages and the Armstrong Williams contract was siphoned through the same huge public relations firm, Ketchum Communications, which itself filtered the funds through subcontractors. A new report by Congressional Democrats finds that Ketchum has received $97 million of the administration's total $250 million P.R. kitty, of which the Williams and Ryan-Garcia scams would account for only a fraction. We have yet to learn precisely where the rest of it ended up.

Even now, we know that the fake news generated by the six known shills is only a small piece of the administration's overall propaganda effort. President Bush wasn't entirely joking when he called the notoriously meek March 6, 2003, White House press conference on the eve of the Iraq invasion "scripted" while it was still going on. (And "Jeff Gannon" apparently wasn't even at that one). Everything is scripted.

The pre-fab "Ask President Bush" town hall-style meetings held during last year's campaign (typical question: "Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?") were carefully designed for television so that, as Kenneth R. Bazinet wrote last summer in New York's Daily News, "unsuspecting viewers" tuning in their local news might get the false impression they were "watching a completely open forum." A Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence, intended to provide propagandistic news items, some of them possibly false, to foreign news media was shut down in 2002 when it became an embarrassing political liability. But much more quietly, another Pentagon propaganda arm, the Pentagon Channel, has recently been added as a free channel for American viewers of the Dish Network. Can a Social Security Channel be far behind?

It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post discovered that even at an inaugural ball he was assigned "minders" - attractive women who wouldn't give him their full names - to let the revelers know that Big Brother was watching should they be tempted to say anything remotely off message.

The inability of real journalists to penetrate this White House is not all the White House's fault. The errors of real news organizations have played perfectly into the administration's insidious efforts to blur the boundaries between the fake and the real and thereby demolish the whole notion that there could possibly be an objective and accurate free press. Conservatives, who supposedly deplore post-modernism, are now welcoming in a brave new world in which it's a given that there can be no empirical reality in news, only the reality you want to hear (or they want you to hear). The frequent fecklessness of the Beltway gang does little to penetrate this Washington smokescreen. For a case in point, you needed only switch to CNN on the day after Mr. Olbermann did his fake-news-style story on the fake reporter in the White House press corps.

"Jeff Gannon" had decided to give an exclusive TV interview to a sober practitioner of by-the-book real news, Wolf Blitzer. Given this journalistic opportunity, the anchor asked questions almost as soft as those "Jeff" himself had asked in the White House. Mr. Blitzer didn't question Mr. Guckert's outrageous assertion that he adopted a fake name because "Jeff Gannon is easier to pronounce and easier to remember." (Is "Jeff" easier to pronounce than his real first name, Jim?). Mr. Blitzer never questioned Gannon/Guckert's assertion that Talon News "is a separate, independent news division" of GOPUSA. Only in a brief follow-up interview a day later did he ask Gannon/Guckert to explain why he was questioned by the F.B.I. in the case that may send legitimate reporters to jail: Mr. Guckert has at times implied that he either saw or possessed a classified memo identifying Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative. Might that memo have come from the same officials who looked after "Jeff Gannon's" press credentials? Did Mr. Guckert have any connection with CNN's own Robert Novak, whose publication of Ms. Plame's name started this investigation in the first place? The anchor didn't go there.

The "real" news from CNN was no news at all, but it's not as if any of its competitors did much better. The "Jeff Gannon" story got less attention than another media frenzy - that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN after speaking recklessly at a panel discussion at Davos, where he apparently implied, at least in passing, that American troops deliberately targeted reporters. Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances? With real news this timid, the appointment of Jon Stewart to take over Dan Rather's chair at CBS News could be just the jolt television journalism needs. As Mr. Olbermann demonstrated when he borrowed a sharp "Daily Show" tool to puncture the "Jeff Gannon" case, the only road back to reality may be to fight fake with fake.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company


Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 12:43 PM EST
Updated: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:54 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
JAMES CARVILLE SPEAKS OUT ON HILLARY'S BEHALF
Dear Friends,


There they go again – the slash and burn Republicans are after my friend Hillary Clinton!

I have just learned that Republican political consultant Arthur Finkelstein – who specializes in harsh negative attacks against Democratic candidates – is starting a new anti-Hillary political action committee to run Swift Boat type ads against her in her re-election campaign in 2006!!

The goal is to “bloody her up,” said one leading New York State Republican.

Well, at least they’re honest. This crowd knows they can’t beat Hillary with facts. She is a terrific, hard-working, effective Senator, and the people of New York know it. The latest polls show her in the lead against any possible opponent, including Gov. George Pataki and former mayor Rudy Giuliani – with a 69% approval rating in today’s New York Times! She is doing a great job in the Senate, taking the lead on issues ranging from children’s health to electoral reform, with her new Count Every Vote Bill.

But Republicans know – and we all saw again last year – that millions of dollars of negative advertising, left unanswered, can have a damaging effect. That’s what the Swift Boat ads did in 2004, and that’s what they are going to try to do again against Hillary in 2006.

I know Hillary Clinton is a fighter. I have seen first hand how she gets out there and fights for the principles she believes in. She doesn’t back down, and she doesn't run away. She is going to fight hard in this campaign just as she fights for all of us every day in the Senate.

But she needs our help. The Republican attack machine will have no trouble raising money from their special interest friends. We need to make sure Hillary has the resources she needs to fight back in her campaign - to make sure no attack goes unanswered.

Will you send in your contribution today?

www.friendsofhillary.com

Help Hillary get ready for whatever those guys try to throw at her. Let her know that she will not be alone when the right wing attacks begin. We are going to be there with her, and together, we are going to win!

Sincerely,


James Carville

P.S. Hillary and I have different hair styles, but we got this in common: We believe in fighting hard, fighting back - and winning! So please, send as much as you can for her re-election campaign. I guarantee you it will be well used!

www.friendsofhillary.com

Contribute to Friends of Hillary today! Please just click on the link above.



Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 11:07 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The Inauguration Day Blues
If anyone but George W. Bush were being inaugurated as our 55th president tomorrow, would there be such a vulgar excess of money being thrown at security in our nation’s capitol? Steel fences and concrete barricades? Welding closed manhole covers? Closing train stations? Importing police from around the country? Is this excess in making Washington D.C. look more like a war zone, because George W. Bush believes he is in danger from a terrorist plot? Or is there a fear that the demonstration against his War in Iraq will be so much larger than the demonstration that appeared during his first Inauguration for simply stealing the Presidency?

What does it matter to understand the reason for this excessive build up in security at what should be a celebration within our once-famous democracy? As a child, I always held the Inauguration to be a symbol of hope in a free country, a great American event honoring the induction of a respected new leader, an actualization of our Constitutional Preamble, giving meaning to the words we say in the pledge of allegiance. Now this second-term, barely-elected President has changed all that. Now this Inauguration is but still another symbol of fear; cast as a dark shadow over our hope for a future that we were building, before George W. Bush stole the Presidency.

What do we tell the children? What do today’s children believe about our country? What will they hold sacred as tomorrow’s truths?

With George W. Bush as our President, we seem to be losing sight of decades of progress toward the reduction of nuclear proliferation. We seem to be sacrificing our position of world leadership in matters of earth’s stewardship and the promotion of nations at peace and finding human prosperity. We seem to be losing the long-earned respect of our allies. George W. Bush appears to have his own selfish agenda and clearly showing us that he not a man of vision nor a person of greatness. His Presidency seems to be all about greed and power. What do the children think?

Tomorrow will be sad day, a black-arm-banded day, a day to mourn the losses. The President is posturing to honor the military personnel, who fight his war and the loss of life in that his unfortunate and misdirected order. But it is a day to also mourn the loss of our liberty to this President’s self-imposed fear and hatred of things that he cannot understand.

What will the children think?

(c) Bob Hageman



Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 12:15 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, January 13, 2005
On 'Moral Values,' It's BLUE in a Landslide
This article from "The New York Times" from November 14, 2004 is worth repeating; and another read. My friend Bob in Carbondale, Illinois sent it to me today.


On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

by FRANK RICH

FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.

"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."

And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.

There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.

If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").

None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.

The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."

But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."

It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.

Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.

But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.

When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.

If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.

According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 6:29 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, January 13, 2005 6:33 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Friday, January 7, 2005
NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY - JANUARY 20, 2005

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the War in Iraq, and since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it,
Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" in America.

On "NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" please don't spend any money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY," please boycott Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target...

Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the War in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America; and not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the large corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" is about supporting the troops. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY" you take action by doing nothing.

You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the War in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this idea, which came to me from my friend Bob, with as many people as possible. I totally support it; some of my friends also invest in the stock market. I would advise them not to buy or sell stocks on January 20, 2005.

As always, I welcome your comments,
Gregory Mansfield













Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 10:39 AM EST
Updated: Friday, January 7, 2005 10:42 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
A THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE TO BUYING BLUE
Dear Readers,

After I published the "Chicago Tribune" article about "Buy the Blue", I received several responses via my regular e-mail. But the most thoughtful, and well written, came from my good friend Bob in Carbondale, Illinois. His wife Linda, to whom he refers in the following letter, is also a long time friend of mine. Please read Bob's heartfelt piece; it's very appropriate for the holiday season.

Best wishes for a healthy and happy New Year,
Gregory Mansfield




Greg,

That "Tribune" article has rumbled around in my brain ever since I read it and forwarded it to you. Linda and I have talked about it as well and we both agree that it is a sad commentary on our state of affairs. I would imagine you, like us, have a number of Republican friends. As friends we mostly avoid political discussions. Just because someone is of a different political slant doesn’t make them my enemy. Funny thing is, I grew up Republican. It wasn’t until my late twenties that I began to question my political beliefs along with the other bags of beliefs I had unquestionably accepted through my youth.

The first thing that turned in my brain over that blog article was the divisiveness of the "Choose the Blue" action. Divisiveness was the same reaction that Linda said bothered her about this new Internet-based action that we’re seeing in the news. We have a President, who as a leader since he won in 2000, has been singularly one of the most divisive influences in our country’s history. His lack of leadership may be leading us into a revolution we don’t really want. In a way, it is like the daily choices we make in our behavior when confronted with mean people, ignorant people who offend us. We make a choice to move on or we may choose to react in some way. Sometimes when we are drawn into their drama our reaction can be dumbed-down to their level and we end up rolling in the gutter scratching and spitting with them. Other times, we manage to stay on the high road and insist on being part of a solution and not the problem.

There are good reasons to boycott businesses like WalMart and Casey’s. I won’t shop at WalMart because they are dishonest and treat their employees badly. I wouldn’t buy a drop of gasoline from Casey’s because after 9/11 they spiked their pump prices to $4. per gallon in an attempt to cheat and steal from us. Of course, that presents an interesting dilemma. If I were to begin researching the ethics and moral practices of every business where I traded, what would I find, regardless of Red or Blue?

I’m just not comfortable with writing off a business or a person because of their political stance. It is George W. Bush that I loathe. Well, okay, I also suppose I have a deep loathing for the sanctimonious fervor of the self-righteous Right who have managed to prop up Bush in his tower of fear mongering rage. But hey, what about Senator McCain? He’s a very reasonable Republican. He loved Paul Simon. He eulogized him here last year at Paul’s funeral and they had agreed and worked together on many bipartisan issues. He has been openly critical of Donald Rumsfeld. There are other Republicans who are just as reasonable as McCain. There are Democrats that would make our blood boil,if we took the time to study their voting records.

Somehow we all need to get past our emotional biased reactions to become more knowledgeable about the issues that face our way of life, our national direction. So, there was a record voter turn-out. We are still a bunch of sheep. All we really care about is that the price of gas doesn’t wreck our outing to the mall. It is frightening to me that we have become a nation of consumers. We don’t produce goods like we did in building this great democracy. Where are our collective values being led by this paradigm?

On the other hand, perhaps we do need to become pro-active in our shopping choices. Is that an inevitable direction our collective political character will follow? Being pessimistic, I doubt most people would take the initiative to become knowledgeable about the ethical qualities of the businesses where they trade. Multinational companies probably are calling most of the shots these days. See, I can’t even make that judgment intellectually. It is just a damn good guess based on hearsay and from looking at the decline of tax support that big-business provides to the US coffers. It is obvious that they wield a big stick. What’s that old statement? Just follow the money. Where is the money trail with this new war?

Dialog is important! More is better, and that is why I have jumped in for whatever support I can contribute to your ON THE RAMPAGE blog. I really respect the initiative you have taken. It is at the heart of my rambling rampage in this email. We need to search harder for the truth and better understand each other.

The Internet may be our global community. And holy cow, what does that mean? It could mean that we’ve already begun addressing issues through a world view. We could become better at listening and learning? I still think about how the US helped Japan retool after WWII. Had our car manufacturers retooled and embraced those new management practices we taught the Japanese then, where would be today with NAFTA?

Tolerance and civility are just two things I truly wish Santa could leave in everyone’s stocking this Christmas.

Peace and love throughout our tiny planet; hey, could we give that Aquarius idea another go? It seems like some of the fashion statements are here again.

Bob

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW.






Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 11:29 AM EST
Updated: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:43 AM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Friday, December 17, 2004
BLUE VOTERS NOW URGED TO BUY BLUE
Dear Readers,

After I said in the last entry that I refused to get involved in politics during the holiday season, a friend of mine sent me this for consideration for ON THE RAMPAGE; and I trust his judgment. Especially since we are all purchasing so much merchandise right now, I think it is very important to know what political party you are actually supporting when you drive to your local Wal-Mart (RED) for toys or, in my case, walk on over to my neighborhood Donna Karan (BLUE)boutique for a new shirt. And I more than a little distressed to discover that my favorite department store Saks Fifth Avenue is RED and that my frequent flyer miles on American Airlines (also RED) may never get used now. I have a new respect for Calvin Klein (100% RED; Calvin doesn't give a cent to Republicans)Please read on...


"Blue voters now urged to buy blue"
By Jennifer Skalka
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
Published December 14, 2004

For despondent Democrats there's a new treatment, if not a cure, for their lingering Election Day blues. Think retail therapy.

A Web site called Choose the Blue is offering shopping advice this holiday season, providing information about which companies' employees give to Democrats and which prefer Republicans.

Costco workers gave more to Democrats, for example, while Wal-Mart's preferred Republicans, according to campaign finance records. Donna Karan's people lean left. Fruit of the Loom's give to the right.

For Ann and Bill Duvall, the site's creators, Nov. 3 brought great disappointment--and a call to action.

"We woke up that morning just really devastated and depressed, and in some ways I'm grateful that we came up with this idea because that's where we've been able to put our energy," Ann Duvall, 56, said.

So Choose the Blue is self-help meets activism meets consumerism. Its goal is to shift vast amounts of wealth to people who support the Democrats' cause.

Using information from the Federal Election Commission Web site and the Center for Responsive Politics site, www.opensecrets.org, the Duvalls give their fellow Democrats a gift that could keep on giving.

"If each American who voted for John Kerry spends $100 in 2005 on a blue company instead of a red company, we can move $5 billion away from Republican companies and add $5 billion to the income of companies who donate to Democrats," they say on the site.

In the few weeks since the Duvalls launched the site, it has gained growing notice in the blogosphere. Blogs with names like Angryfinger point to it for inspiration. The Duvalls have heard that their effort was mentioned on Air America, the liberal radio station.Within days of the election, the Duvalls asked 10 of their friends to review their Web site and tell them what worked and what didn't. Whether the friends spread the word or bloggers stumbled upon the unpublicized Choose the Blue site is unclear. But shortly thereafter the Duvalls, who split their time between Silicon Valley and Idaho, started getting e-mails from strangers thanking them for their work.

At its peak, the site received more than 300,000 hits in one day, said Ann Duvall, a mother of three and grandmother of four. Typically between 100,000 and 200,000 sets of eyes peruse it daily.

"This is not a boycott," said Bill Duvall, a software creator who was involved in the transmission of the first e-mail message 35 years ago. "... It's just that we believe it's possible to direct some of your spending so we can begin to at least even the playing field."

Choose the Blue breaks down its information into categories such as automotive, consumer electronics, retail shopping and fashion, and sports. The site's tallies also include gifts from companies to political action committees. The figures for the companies and their employees show the total percentages and dollar amounts given to Republican and Democratic candidates or causes.

Choose the Blue is joined in cyberland by Buy Blue, a site with a similar mission. Its mantra is: "In today's America there's a more powerful act than voting blue, and that's buying blue." It also urges people to have a "blue Christmas" and says: "Find out which businesses have been naughty and which have been nice. Shop accordingly!"

Though experts applaud the initiative taken by creators of these sites, they aren't sure their strategy is sound. After all, Republicans too can take advantage of the information they're providing.

"The question that remains then is which side does a better job of spreading the word to those who are most likely to act on it," said Eszter Hargittai, an assistant professor of sociology at Northwestern University and a faculty fellow in the Institute for Policy Research.

Richard Feinberg of Purdue University said most people don't make their shopping decisions based on personal ideology. They look for the best bargains or the most convenient stores.

"The handful of people that it might influence are already boycotting or not spending money on businesses that they think go against their political grain," said Feinberg, director of the school's Center for Customer Driven Quality. "It's not going to change a neutral person."

Although innovative and purposeful, Choose the Blue illustrates something perhaps unintended about some of the people who voted for Sens. Kerry and John Edwards. As exhausting and frustrating as the loss was for them, they're not done fighting.

Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a Washington, D.C., non-profit, said Choose the Blue is ultimately a sign of that discontent. Gans said the Democrats' future success, however, would not depend on the power of smaller movements. He said the party must re-evaluate its purpose, and with temperatures still high after a close election, raising money won't be its main challenge.

"I think the important thing is for the Democrats to define who they are and to develop a grass-roots organization that isn't dependent on other groups," Gans said.

Still, the power and reach of the blogosphere--the vast universe of Web logs viewed by countless people--is evident in the growing popularity of the Duvalls' site. Already, the couple has been threatened with legal action by one company, which the Duvalls declined to name, that was unhappy with its mention on the site.

Bill Duvall, 59, said the blogosphere promotes the very essence of democracy by giving people a voice who wouldn't normally have one. It provided him and his wife--who are now semiretired--with a prime outlet for their post-election political expression.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

WELCOME TO THE 'BLOGOSPHERE' WHERE YOU TOO CAN SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS! SO PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW; HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT "CHOOSING THE BLUE?"

Happy Holidays,
Gregory Mansfield



Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 5:50 PM EST
Updated: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:19 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
A SEASON OF PEACE

Dear Readers,

When I created this blog, back in November after the Presidential election fiasco, I intended for it to be a forum for all my friends and me to express our views on why we think that George W. Bush is so bad for America.

One of my most intelligent and articulate friends, who I will call Brooks (she is a practicing attorney and a fine writer) wrote to me and said that she is actually afraid of George W. Bush. And Brooks is anything but an irrational person; and I don't think that she is alone in seeing clearly the portents of trouble ahead with this President in charge of our great country.

I received an e-mail today from another good friend of mine, who lives in Southern Illinois. He says that he is now going to practice "news avoidance" until after the holidays; and celebrate what this is supposed to be; a season of harmony and peace. I am embracing his idea; so I am not going "on the rampage" again until after December.

This is a sacred time of year; when people of the world at least try to be kind to each other. Americans sometimes get so crazy buying Christmas presents, that they forget that Jesus Christ communicated a clear message of forgiveness, compassion and, most of all, love.

So during this holy holiday season of 2004, whether you celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, for all of you reading this; I wish you the most important gift in the whole world -- the gift of love in your life.

May the coming year bring a time of growth and renewal for America; and may this holiday become a lasting season of peace for you.

Happy Holidays,


Gregory E. Mansfield (c)

For more about my adventures in South Beach, you can go to my personal blog at gregorymansfield.com You can also contribute there to the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR); go to the DONATE button at the end of the blog.
Thank you for contributing to this worthy non-profit organization; that does so much for AIDS research and improving the quality of life for people with AIDS worldwide. You can learn more about amFAR at www.amfar.org

Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 3:38 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 3:49 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
MONTHLY DEATH TOLL IN IRAQ
During the month of November 2004, a total of 135 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq. The new death toll is a solemn reminder that in the aftermath of George W. Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq -- supposedly to defeat Saddam Hussein and to deploy nuclear weapons of mass destruction (which, of course, we now know never existed in the first place)-- the War in Iraq has been far costlier in human lives than the initial battle.

Since May 1, 2003, when George W. Bush declared major combat operations, over 1,112 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

In "USA Today" Tom White, a former secretary of the Army who left the Pentagon in 2003, says the public may have to get used to the current level of American casualties for some time.

"That's the price we're going to have to pay if we want to win this," White said.

Well, Mr. White I refuse to "get used to" the idea that 135 Americans DIED this past month. Even George W. Bush himself slipped on the "Today" show last month and said to Matt Lauer that "this is a war that we just can't win." Of course, he instantly hired his team of spin doctors -- even employing the aid of his Stepford wife Laura -- to convince the American public that the remark was just a matter of semantics and that it was NOT what Bush meant to say.

And since I'm on the topic of semantics, why does the media always refer to the dead as "troops" and not "people?" These are American men and woman, most of whom have families, who died for this meaningless war. If you ask me, it's just another way for the Bush Administration to dehumanize the atrocities of the dirty war he started. Bush dehumanizes gay and lesbian people in much the same way, by referring to the "gay agenda" Well, it is not a "gay agenda" it is a human rights agenda. Gay and lesbian couples are only asking for basic American rights; but the "moral" President bombastically continues to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

An election was won last month on "moral issues." It's true, "moral issues" were more important to voters who answered exit polls than the War in Iraq; more than our pitiful crumbling economy; more than the fact that we are now the laughing stock of the world because of our rich little President, who never ever admits that he is wrong.

1,112 American people dying in Iraq is morally wrong to me.

So every one of you who actually voted for George W. Bush last November should be hanging your heads in shame today. I believe that John Kerry would have safely and peacefully removed American troops from Iraq as soon as he was able to do it.

135 Americans died just this November.

Are you standing taller now; now that your "moral" President is back in the White House? If you voted for George W. Bush, as his colleague Tom White said, "get used to the current level of casualties for some time."

(C) Gregory Mansfield


PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW

Posted by rebellion2/gregorysobe at 2:19 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older