Blaze, America

Igniting a week of truth and healing
Published by OpEdNews.com

In the next ten days, America will choose its destiny and define its identity. This is a weighty moment in history. The world looks on with great anticipation, hoping that we see beyond political rhetoric and fears to blaze again with our light.

It is our light, not our military might, that has attracted the world to the American way of life. Our light blazes in our founding principles, our inventions, our books, our technology, our films, and our explorers. When we stand in the truth of our national identity, we demonstrate our human potential by going beyond perceived limits. Our role is to lead with hope.

However, we have not been blazing in recent years – we have succumbed to a Machiavellian deceptiveness on the world stage, advancing only the narrow interests of an elite. It has been a dark time. Our light has flickered badly.

It is time for this epoch to end.

What we need in these final days of election is to blaze again with love and truth, filling ourselves with respect for those on both sides of the political divide. Anger at Bush has served to stir many of us from our slumbers and motivate us for the long, hard hours that creating change requires. But anger does not win hearts and minds. We need to shift towards openheartedness.

As we near the finish line of the election, we also need to convey our sincere commitment to create a country that works for all of us, including those whom we have opposed politically. We don’t want a healed America just for ourselves but for all of our fellow citizens and all of the species on this planet. To get there means clearing the darkness, fear, and distress that have enshrouded our land, and the only way is via the sunlight of truth.

I therefore suggest a week of truth telling, starting on Tuesday, October 26th, at noon Eastern Time. Please forward this call to friends, allies, and sympathetic organizations that might take it up, as well as government insiders who may be privy to information that the public needs to know to make a wise decision on November 2nd.

As people step forward, let us welcome their truths without rancor and blame. Let us welcome them in the spirit of healing our country and standing again in our greatness. Many whistleblowers have rightly feared retribution. Now is the time to tell the story – there is safety in numbers and there is little time for retribution if momentum continues to build to remove the Bush administration. It’s time to let the world know about the ways in which the administration has deceived us by the people who have witnessed it. Potential whistleblowers can disseminate what they know to reporters, bloggers, web lists, and online news sites. If enough people do this in the final week of the election, the result will be a powerful national catharsis that opens the way for a new and healthier government.

We can imagine this as a Jubilee, which in Biblical times was a year in which all debts were forgiven. Similarly, let us encourage insiders to come forward with their truths and witness what they share with forgiveness.

In one week of truth telling, we can ensure that a darkened chapter of American history closes and a new dawn breaks. This requires opening our hearts to those who have perpetrated crimes. Once the shadowy truths are revealed, significant changes and measures of justice will undoubtedly be required. But let us administer those measures gracefully and generously, not with the hand of retribution but with the hand of wisdom. Many good people have had their behaviors distorted by a corrupted system. As insiders bring forward their stories in the final week before the election, let us receive them with a compassionate heart. Just as individuals can cleanse their sins by sharing them in a confessional, so can the blemishes of our nation be cleansed in a week of deep honesty and forgiveness.

Please forward this email widely so it can reach all those who might have stories they have been afraid to share. Encourage them to share what they know, starting on Tuesday, for a week of truth and healing that paves the way for real healing on Nov 2nd. In this way, one chapter of darkened history can close and America can blaze again.

Of Ties and Truth

Published by Common Dreams

One of the most illuminating details about tonight, the most careful debate we’ve seen, was the choice of wardrobe. The two candidates wore nearly identical suits with nearly identical red ties with nearly identical white dots and the American flag pin in the same spot.

That may seem trivial, but it illustrates how the political process gradually bends candidates away from their natural center of gravity to suit the electorate. It was as if their respective handlers read the same fashion reports and groomed their candidate to fit the “powerful presidential look.”

Similarly, after the polling feedback from two previous debates, both candidates gravitated towards similar personalities – optimistic, engaging, commanding. Bush had clearly been chastised for his rabid moments. He smiled in a constant but often insincere fashion. Kerry had clearly been coached about his seriousness and his lack of overt displays of religiosity. And so he quoted the Bible and talked about his altar boy days and parodied his seriousness when discussing the women in his life.

If you weren’t someone who has been working vigorously on the issues and reading the deeper analyses and exposing yourself to Internet fact checkers, you’d think these were two collegial guys who have slightly different ideas about how to run the country. It all seemed rather polite and chummy.

I find this disappointing.

It’s not that I don’t think there are radical differences between the two candidates. There are, perhaps more differences than we’ve faced in a century. It wasn’t a relatively benign conservative President who dragged me from my political slumbers to get engaged this year. It was a man who is driving our democracy and our planet into the ground. Bush’s administration has been a slap in the face of those who cherish the planet we live on: the lies, the gutting of our liberties, the backroom secrecy, the military braggadocio, the entitled indifference, the brazen transfer of wealth, the razing of the environment. It’s been enough to force many of us who were not engaged into committed and powerful action.

And yet watching the debate tonight, Bush seemed rather harmless – not particularly well educated perhaps, but congenial enough. Gone was the scowl and the pout, scrubbed clean after the polling feedback. Similarly, Kerry also positioned himself cautiously, hitting the same points as before. The man who moved me to tears in the documentary Going Upriver stirred little in me during this debate. I do recognize a warrior for the truth in him. It surfaced in moments, such as when he related his mother’s closing words to him about “integrity, integrity, integrity.” But it tends to get lacquered over by the varnish of the political process, the careful sculpting of every word to stay on point, to prevent any missteps, to send keywords to each base. The future of our country and even the world is reduced to a sort of chess match of statistics, plans, posturing, and sound bites.

It’s maddening when it’s clear that we need something deeper, much more fundamental: a major evolution, a shaking of the national character to allow something more generous, visionary, and bold to emerge. The first debate had some of that fire in it – an opening for Kerry to carry the torch of truth and transformation.

Tonight, we had a sort of bland sparring match, with neither providing much in the way of powerful moments. Sure, Kerry won on points and had a greater command of statistics and policy and was more “presidential.” But I hungered for more moments such as when he said that “being lectured by the President about fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order.” Now THAT had oomph in it – the force of genuine, powerful truth, playfully delivered.

I hope that Kerry doesn’t hold back in these last 20 days. This country urgently needs to wake up again, to be shaken from our indolent slumbers and realize that we are simply not acting in integrity anymore. The world is seeing it clearly. We need to remember our greatness rather than dwell in our fears and non-stop offensive wars. We need to be reminded of our true calling to live with integrity, wisdom, and compassion.

This cannot happen without the truth. We must tell it like it is. We need the unvarnished truth about 911 rather than the shellacked report produced by the 911 Commission. We need the unedited truth about the disaster of the Iraq War and our drive to secure adequate oil to feed a gluttonous empire. We need the truth about efforts to control the media. We need to expose illegitimate CIA covert operations. We need to remove the corporate claws from the halls of Congress.

We need major change and what we get is identical ties.

It’s a maddening part of politics, this race to a careful center. Our only choice is to look deeper, to really examine the records beneath the rhetoric, the true history rather than the narrative tale of these two men. And on that score, Kerry wins powerfully.

The truth is that if we want positive change, the messenger we have to send to the White House this year is John Kerry. However, it seems that the constraints of politics may not allow him to unleash the soul force that he had as spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It’s up to us to live and breathe that fire while he positions himself to deal with a political reality that is hemmed in to a very narrow bandwidth of acceptability.

Deep down, Kerry has the potential for greatness. He showed it clearly during the Vietnam War. What we simply must believe is that the man who spoke the conscience of America about Vietnam will carry the torch of truth, integrity, and reform once he is President. To change the rules of the game, it first takes someone who can play by the rules and still win. Kerry’s methodical march in the last debate may be what it takes to win the American people – a steady reliability that soothes the fears of a skitterish populace. Then, once he’s elected, the winds of real change can blow freely.

Let’s hope that enough Americans see past the identical ties to the deeper truth.

The Transmission of Truth

I’ve taken a bit of a breather in article production, but I’ve been watching the political landscape closely. Rather than write a new article today, I thought I’d point you to a few interesting trends to watch and see how they impact the race.

The ubiquity of the Internet and the evolution of a parallel journalism network of blogs has changed the nature of the game this year, which is a good thing. We are no longer dependent on conventional media channels for important investigations or stories to get underway. Indeed, the major media seem to function increasingly as a gatekeeper, preventing a particular line of evidence or thought from emerging until it has built critical mass or buzz. It is growing less common for them to “break open” a major story. Their function is shifting from one of generating information flows to acting as a quality control filter. We now have millions of parallel communications flying around the Internet. The major outlets then discriminate quality (or acceptability).

The good thing about this, given media consolidation, is that a relatively small group of people do not have control over what is discussed and circulated but they still do control what is considered acceptable to address in official culture. A great example is what some people are calling Audiogate — the evidence that Bush may have been wired for audio transmissions in the first debate.

Almost everyone at first dismisses this notion that Bush was wired, for the reason that he performed so abysmally. However, there is visual, audio, and historical evidence that he may indeed have been wired. The scenario makes sense and even can account for his dreadful performance. Bush is known to be lazy – he doesn’t like to read to keep up on everything. He’s known for malapropisms and mangled grammar and stumbling in his speeches. It would make sense and be very practical to have an audio feed for him during major addresses. The technology is there. The only question is whether he would use it. A former translator has given evidence and there is compelling evidence from a speech in France in which a shadow feed was picked up and broadcast. It was not identical to Bush’s talk but preceded his spoken words. There are various images with mystery bulges underneath Bush’s coat from past press conferences. Etc. Etc. So there’s some evidence of historical precedent

During the first debate, Bush said mid-sentence, with no one apparently stopping him, “Let me finish.” Virtually no one paid attention to this except a few bloggers. They excerpted that speech and started the rumor that Bush might have been wired and mistakenly spoke to his earpiece in that sentence. This then led to the discovery of a whole series of pictures from Fox in which there is a clear outline of the square mystery bulge in the back of Bush’s jacket. The image started spreading like wildfire. Activists started launching campaigns to approach major media and the White House. The buzz built into a roar in three or four days until the major media simply had to report on it, even if the reports were largely geared as dismissals. Based on what I’ve seen I’m betting that he WAS wired, as a crutch/habit from previous press conferences but that it actually made him perform worse because it distracted his attention from the debate itself.

Audiogate is not over – it’s thriving and growing. The Salon article is the most impartial and you can track new developments on www.isbushwired.com. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/

Now, if we were dependent on the major media to break this story, it never would have happened – too risky. But in the Internet blogosphere, there was a structure for information flows that could build momentum until the major media had no choice but to report on it. And if it indeed breaks open and becomes a major factor in the election, the major media deserve zero credit. They basically sat on their hands while independent bloggers drove the process.

This, when you think about it, is enormously empowering. It means the kvetching about corporate ownership of major media is pointless; we are no longer dependent on them to delve into truth. We can drive them rather than them hypnotizes us.

Another example is the 911 truth movement, which has been a longer, slower build but is reaching a similar stage now where major media are starting to write about it in order to dismiss it. The Washington Post ran an article last week detailing some of the dynamics of this, especially regarding a Flash animation that has now been seen by many millions of people after a late August launch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13059-2004Oct6.htmlD
Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet

The particular Flash animation they focus on became “viral,” getting forwarded extremely rapidly around the world. The unfortunate part is that this is one small area of evidence for high-level government complicity and far from the most compelling. Books like David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor chronicle the evidence in much more meticulous detail. However, Griffin’s book has sold about 60,000 copies (without reviews in any major media) whereas the Pentagon Flash animation has been seen by millions now. Here’s the Pentagon animation for those who haven’t seen it:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Without the Internet, the 911 truth movement would have suffered the same fate as investigations into the suspicious evidence about the JFK assassination: a long, long time with no one looking at it, a few books, discussions, etc and then, almost 25 years later, a tipping point in which it fairly rapidly moved from being a nutty idea to commonplace belief that JFK was assassinated as part of a larger plan/plot rather than a wacky lone gunman. Unfortunately, 25 years is not quick enough to produce any real changes as a result. So it’s a sort of interesting historical analysis but mostly irrelevant to current political work.

That’s not true with 911 truth work. It has accelerated quite far in 3 years and those who have advanced the investigation into the hundreds of pieces of evidence that were ignored, dismissed, and distorted as part of a heavily compromised 911 Commission have been able to assemble a powerful and compelling case in the form of books, DVD’s dozens of websites, actions, conferences, etc. This is quickly becoming a factor in the election itself, with 50% of New Yorkers in a recent Zogby poll stating they believed the government had foreknowledge and consciously failed to act. Here’s the Zogby poll. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841

The speed of transmission and interconnection has suddenly made this kind of work relevant to current political realities. Audiogate, if it turns out to be true, might cost Bush the election. 911 work, if it is true, could shake up the entire covert government structure and lead to major change well beyond the election. By the way, the best orientation site to the 911 truth movement is www.911truth.org.

Neither of these (or dozens of other important investigations) are dependent on the major media breaking the story. They becomes literally compelled to write about something once it reaches an adequate level of buzz on channels that they can’t control .

In the final three weeks of the campaign, Karl Rove will undoubtedly be throwing out a bunch of dirty tricks. The major media are largely asleep at the wheel. Internet-driven investigations may thwart him, exposing the lies and distortions far more quickly than ever before. It’s new terrain: fast, furious and out of control. And a lot of fun.

May the truth triumph in the public sphere!

Dear Conservative Friend

“You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16)

Dear Conservative Friend,

In the midst of a heated election season, I wanted to write to you about voting on November 2nd. Chances are that you were already planning to vote because your values lead you to take good care of what you’ve inherited: a great country.

What might not be as obvious is how you will vote. If you’re like many true conservatives I know, you have felt strong misgivings about the conduct of the Bush administration these last four years. And yet, you have a bedrock loyalty to the values that the Republican Party champions.

Instead of trying to change that loyalty, I want to thank you for it. When raising children, it is said that our goal should be to give them both roots and wings. In raising America as a country – and it is still a young country – we have needed conservatives to give us roots, to not make changes willy-nilly that corrupt the moral fabric of the country. Conservatives have helped provide the glue that binds us together as a nation and helped till the soil that has given us our present-day harvest. As a conservative, you know it is important to discern the wheat from the chaff.

While my personal disposition is to champion social innovation, experimentation, and change, I also recognize the importance of my conservative counterparts. They keep a rein on my enthusiasms and help ensure that ideas with enduring value get traction in the form of businesses, families, and institutions that last.

Conservative values give us roots. And I believe progressive values give us wings. With each electoral season, as the pendulum swings back and forth between conservatives and progressives, there is a healthy tension, similar to the dynamics in a family. A father might be more protective and disciplined, a mother more caring and generous. Republican values and Democratic values mirror this typical split in a family. Together, these two approaches give the child what it needs.

The true brilliance of our founding fathers was the creation a system of government that could match the needs of new times by always maintaining checks and balances. No one has been able to get the upper hand for long, which is fortunate since it is well understood that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And so, as this election approaches, I do not want you to cast aside your conservative values. I encourage you to honor them and to focus on preserving what is great about this country. And I believe that if you vote your conservative values you will not vote for George W. Bush. He may speak your language. But his actions do not align with his words.

The Bible urges us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15) The wolf is a predator who, in his desire to feast on sheep, disguises himself to get closer to his prey. Similarly, Bush often dons the disguise of conservatism. He wears the mantle and speaks with charm. The difference is in the actions. Do Bush’s actions honor conservative values?

The bedrock of all conservative values is the truth. We cannot live a good and honorable life that is built on lies. The Bush administration has been caught in lie after lie, especially about the Iraq war. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservatives tend to distrust of government to solve problems. And yet, we have pursued an almost unprecedented intervention in the governance of other countries. We have adopted an aggressive posture towards other nations, claiming the right to invade them pre-emptively and re-structure their systems of governance as we see fit. Recently, Bush said in the debate that we must always remain on the offensive. We’ve also vastly expanded the power of our own government to spy on us. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservative values lead to a deep and abiding respect for the rights we are given by our Constitution. The Bush administration has adopted a radically revisionist stance to those rights, making sweeping changes with the Patriot Act with little forethought or debate. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservatives tend to strongly favor fiscal discipline. And yet, the Bush administration has increased overall government spending at a greater rate – 18% per year, last I read -- than any president since WWII, squandering a budget surplus and pushing a mounting load of debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservative values reflect the Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Bush administration, though, has not treated other nations with the respect we want for ourselves, with the result that world opinion of America may be at its lowest point in history. America’s good name has been sullied. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservative values lead to a deep respect for democracy and the sanctity of our vote. The Bush administration gained power on the heels of voting roll purges in Florida that targeted some 57,000 individuals, only 3-4% of whom were later proven to be actual felons. This year, the voter roll purges continue. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservative values honor our shared divinity – the Christ in each of us. As Jesus said, “As you do unto the least of these, so you do unto me.” (Matthew 25:35-40) Bush has polarized the world into us and them, speaking always of evil-doers and enemies. His administration has encouraged torture at places like Abu Ghraib, losing the moral high ground. In his zeal, he has not treated his enemies with love. Would we treat prisoners with torture if we literally saw the Christ in them? This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

Conservative values lead us to value preservation rather than waste. The Bush administration has gutted many environmental laws, removing the protections of our beautiful country that we once enjoyed. This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

The Bush administration has engaged in cronyism, granting billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to corporate friends. This amounts to nothing but stealing your money and putting it into the pocket of their friends. Do you want to subsidize Halliburton, Carlyle, and many more of their friends? This is not the mark of a conservative administration.

The people around Bush have coined a new term – neoconservatism – to describe their approach. The only thing that seems to be truly conservative about this approach is that they need the conservative voting block in order to continue it. A better name is piracy – taking money from you or your children to advance their ambitions and enrich their coffers, while undermining the principles that have made this country great. This is not true conservatism.

In looking at all of the evidence before us, I believe it becomes clear that we are not dealing with the normal and healthy tension between conservative and progressive values this fall at the voting box. If we were, you could vote for the Republican candidate in good conscience. Next election, I hope that you can return to that loyalty if the Republican party runs a candidate who represents your values. This year, though, if you look with clear eyes, I think you will see that the Bush administration is not a conservative administration but a radical and potentially dangerous one, bent on consolidating power at any cost, advancing wars of aggression abroad, eroding our constitutional rights, and wasting our money. They lie to cover misdeeds and reward campaign contributors at the expense of our children.

They are, in short, wolves in sheep’s clothing, adopting the language of true conservatives to gain political advantage but acting with a wanton disregard for the institutions and the people they have been elected to govern. They are not preserving what is great about America.

If you are a true conservative, I believe that Bush and Cheney do not deserve your vote. And their recklessness will only increase if given a second term. Kerry and Edwards may wear the label of Democrats. They may not always speak your language since they speak the language that Democrats favor. But in terms of honoring the values that you cherish, they will do a better job than Bush and Cheney.

That is why I ask you to help us preserve America by voting for Kerry. If the time comes when a Democrat has dishonored the values he or she was elected upon, I for one, will join you in removing that person from office, including if that requires voting for the conservative candidate. It is our task, on both sides of the political divide, to hold the men and women who govern us accountable. I urge you to hold Bush and Cheney accountable on November 2nd.

Sincerely,
Stephen Dinan

Bring Back Our Brightness

Published by OpEdNews.com
One thing emerged loud and clear from the debate this evening: the American people deserve a debate between John Kerry and Vice President Cheney. While John Edwards often seemed focused on cheerleading the head of his ticket, it was easy to forget when Cheney responded that Bush was even the head of the ticket.

In his command of policy details and facts, Cheney revealed what many have assumed all along: he is the real power of this administration, the driving force behind its vision, doctrines, and decisions. In the first response to 9/11, Cheney took over the chain of command while Bush sat in the classroom reading about pet goats – an interesting fact in retrospect. This power imbalance was illuminated in the contrast between last Thursday’s debate and tonight. Thursday, Bush was lost, while tonight Cheney was clearly a powerhouse.

The question then, is whether the American people want the next four years to be shaped primarily by Cheney, who operates largely in secret and with a decidedly grim view of the world in which we live, or by Kerry, who offers a change. After two debates, it was clear that these two personalities will most dramatically sculpt the world we will live in the next four years.

Cheney’s world is a dark one. Even in the closing moments of the debate, he could barely countenance a smile. During much of it, he seemed the Mafia don, hunched over the table, staring through the top of his glasses, his hands enfolded, growling out statistics and attacks with a gravelly voice. There was something compelling about his power but also chilling. He made me think of an attack dog that is better left on a chain in the yard rather than invited in the house.

Edwards surprised no one by providing a powerful dose of charm to contrast with Cheney’s ominous presence. In Edwards’ closing remarks, he spoke about how the bright light of America is flickering, whether the administration concedes it or not. The flickering of the flame was obvious at the table – there was nothing optimistically American in Cheney, just a hard-bitten, hard-edged, statistics-driven view of reality. Edwards, by contrast, provided winsomeness even in the midst of Cheney’s attacks. He proved himself remarkably resilient, deflecting Cheney’s critiques without upset and refocusing back on the many problems of the current administration.

Nonetheless, it did sometimes feel like a middleweight asked to box with Mike Tyson. One couldn’t help but root for Edwards, taking on Tyson with class, but it was daunting and he took tough body blows on everything from his track record in the Senate to his use of a tax loophole. Edwards did deliver shots of his own, returning often to where Bush and Cheney are not being straight with the American people about Iraq. His exposure of Halliburton hit hard and Cheney only responded by pointing people to a website. Nonetheless, the shots didn’t seem to perturb Cheney much as he flicked them away like a heavyweight fighter. In terms of raw power, Cheney clearly held the upper hand.

The question, though, is what happens when raw power is unconnected to heart? What happens when the statistics-driven mind is divorced from compassion? Do we begin to perpetuate exactly the dark view of humanity that we are seeking to destroy?

Psychologists tell us that in our fight against the shadow in the world, we often empower it and begin to manifest it more in ourselves. Clearly, in the course of four years, Cheney has developed an even grimmer view of reality. Can this make us safer? Or is it better to lead with the light, drawing people forward with what is best about America? Our success in leading the world has largely flowed from magnetism rather than domination. The world’s people have, at least in the past, wanted to be more like us, which has made the spread of democracy and American ideal possible. Cheney’s world is driven by a more pessimistic view of human nature, one that demands control, aggression, and dominance. There is simply no space for a warm heart in this view.

Edwards framed it correctly in his closing: do we want more of the same? Cheney offers us the same preference for war, the same bulldog surety that has compromised America’s good standing in the world, and the same cynicism that has begun to erode our national character. Edwards may lack some of the hard-bitten experience that Cheney has but I believe that he can lead us forward into a brighter tomorrow, especially as he gains experience. Fortunately, Kerry has the seasoned political experience that Edwards lacks. Together, they bring a complete package of intelligence, heart, and resolute power to the table, married to an optimistic view of American potential. With Bush and Cheney, we are left mainly with darkness and fear.

We sorely need to bring back our brightness this year – the heart and humor that is at the core of America’s genius. If we do not, then terrorism will truly have triumphed.

Catastrophic Success

During last Thursday’s debate, Bush made a fascinating statement about our failures in Iraq. He said, “We weren't prepared for catastrophic success.”

This new term wonderfully encapsulates the hidden blessing of the Bush administration – provided that we choose to move beyond it on November 2nd. His team has created such a spectacular failure of the old operating assumptions that it may force our country as a whole to move to another level of conscious governance. And that can be seen as a catastrophic success.

“Catastrophic success” as a term points towards a deeper truth, which is that catastrophe is often a precursor for some fundamental advance. This idea finds currency in many cultures. For example, “crisis” in the I-Ching is composed of two terms that mean “danger” and “opportunity.” In Hinduism, the god Shiva is both destroyer and creator.

Bush’s new phrase nicely summarizes how we have created a catastrophe that can mobilize a whole new generation of change. The success portion depends, of course, on first looking with clear eyes upon the catastrophe in all its gory detail. Fortunately, an increasing number of conservatives are joining progressives and Democrats in seeing this administration for the catastrophe that it is.

Our ever-expanding military power now exceeds our ability to wield it sensibly. In the schoolyard, it is easy for the victor in an evenly-matched fight to be celebrated as a hero. However, if the victor outsizes the opposition by six inches and fifty pounds of muscle, he is no longer a hero but a thug preying upon a weaker victim.

America’s bristling military power has now solidified our role as the over-muscled bully on the world stage. We literally cannot fight a war in which we do not clearly and decisively destroy our opponent in a way that makes us look like a bully. Militarily, from this point forward, we are doomed to catastrophic success whenever we choose to fight. Hopefully, Iraq will be the last demonstration that we can decisively win a military war while decisively losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people, which leaves an expensive mess.

The irony for those in the peace movement is that it is precisely our unmatchable military muscle that may sow the seeds for long-term peace by making war an unwinnable strategy. American interests cannot be hated indefinitely by the world’s people – it’s bad for business. Uprisings and terrorism are costly. Hatred has a negative effect on the bottom line. Control and spin can only serve as partial remedy. We need to be respected or the American empire will fail. And thus, military solutions grow increasingly less workable: whenever and wherever we now fight, it is likely to be a catastrophic success.

Similarly, on the domestic front, the Bush administration has been a gloriously catastrophic success. It has illuminated the problems of corporate capitalism. It has made us fight for our constitutional freedoms as the Patriot Act chisels away at them. It has revealed the dark greed at the heart of much of the political apparatus. And it has made flag-moving, line-toeing patriotism seem like a relic of a more naive past.

Domestically and internationally, then, the Bush administration has been a catastrophic success.

America stands on the cusp of a pivotal transition, from acting as a self-interested empire-state to acting as a compassionate steward for the world, thereby ushering in a global era of prosperity and peace. By exaggerating the most rapacious parts of the old order, the Bush administration has paved the way for this transition. In bludgeoning a country militarily and losing badly in the hearts and minds of the “liberated,” America is proving that wars are no longer a viable strategy to achieve long-term objectives.

Thank you, Mr. President, for creating a blazing inferno of catastrophic successes. May we learn the lessons of these successes and turn them into positive transformation of our nation on November 2nd.

Converting to Kerry

Like many progressives, I’ve spent much of the election season unenthused about Senator Kerry. There were even times that I questioned supporting him at all – perhaps the boomerang effect from a second Bush term would catapult us further forward in the long term. Or so I mused. In the primaries, I championed Dennis Kucinich, who embodied ideals I had rarely seen in a politician. Following the primaries, I grieved the deafness of the Democratic Party to his message, resigning myself to a long wait for the changes that I really wanted.

Eventually, after the nomination was secured, I focused on efforts that would build the long-term progressive movement as well as undermine Bush and his cabal. I could not feign enthusiasm by campaigning for Kerry but I was happy to work on discrediting Bush. This stance has been actively celebrated by Democrats this year with the motto of Anybody But Bush. However, there has been a problem in this logic, since Americans are, at root, an optimistic and forward-looking people. To vote for negative reasons runs against the grain of our national character. We need someone to celebrate. We need someone we can champion. We need someone who expresses our ideals. A hero is far more enduring, compelling, and motivating than a villain.

This week, much to my surprise, I am having a conversion experience to truly supporting Kerry. This is not because I agree with him on every point of policy. Or because he fully shares my views on things like the Iraq war. I certainly haven’t been convinced by the Democratic Party’s propaganda machine – there is plenty there that needs reform as well.

I have been won over by the greatness I am beginning to see in Kerry’s soul.

The first intimations for me came in the debate on Thursday, when Kerry revealed himself as a noble warrior: powerful, resolute, and clear-thinking, a stark contrast to the incoherent repetitiveness of Bush. As Kerry spoke, I was inspired. His performance was enough to motivate me to see the movie Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry.

This movie is extraordinary for one reason: it shines with the soul power of a man playing out a courageous role in history. We witness a 27 year old veteran, speaking before a key Senate subcommittee with depth of insight, courage of conviction, and purposeful patriotism. He spoke the conscience of a nation. To reach that point, John endured bullets and the madness of an unjust war, a war he had gone to fight with the noblest of intentions. He then endured the bullets of silence, neglect, and shame that hit the veterans upon return. Instead of succumbing to drink or denial, he took on an almost unthinkably difficult task: to change the opinions of a nation and convince powerful forces in Washington that they had erred. He risked his planned career in politics to take this stand.

It is a mark of greatness when, in moments of moral darkness, a man or woman chooses to risk future, friends, and social standing to do what is right. Life often presents this dichotomy – we can choose the safer path, or we can choose the heroic path, which may cost us everything. When John Kerry was faced with this choice as a man of 27, he chose the heroic path and the effect from that decision sends ripples of benefit forward to today.

Throughout the movie, John’s quietly powerful presence emanates from videos, stills, and speeches. The testimonials of those who knew him are filled with extraordinary respect. He reveals himself as a natural leader. In watching this chronicle, I began to see his aloofness in a different light. I began to see it as watchfulness, patience, and moral clarity - a Lincolnesque seriousness that derives from a heartfelt sense of right and wrong. His is the demeanor of principled conviction rather than the charm of a snake-oil salesman.

His steady, courageous hand was evident in the stories of those who served with him on the Swift Boats, a particularly maddening and dangerous duty. Later, in his work with veterans, he built the movement to end the war without rancor, counseling patience and easing hot tempers, preventing violence at every step. He won people over by demonstrating the moral high ground. When he threw his own medals over the fence, a powerful act of protest with hundreds of his brothers, he quietly stated that he was opposed to no one.

Vietnam was many things to America but perhaps more than anything it was the first great public mistake of a maturing nation. For that war, we paid a heavy price. John Kerry, at a young age, presciently saw that America needed to learn deep, important lessons from that mistake. He knew, even then, that we had not fully learned the lesson we needed to learn. Thus the war continues, the war of truth and justice and facing the shadow side of our power. If we are lucky, it will continue with him as our President.

Even diehard Republicans would be challenged to watch this movie and not be impressed with the heroism of John Kerry as a young man. The hot fires of Vietnam and its aftermath were the forge that created the steel of his character. Out of it came a man committed to do the right thing. Bush’s life of privilege, protection, and frivolousness during the same era could not stand in starker contrast. The mettle of these two men was revealed early.

If elected, Kerry may not get us out of the war in Iraq immediately. It may take time. But I believe that the experiences that were seared into him in Vietnam ensure that he understands the full price of every life and limb that is lost and that he will not take his duties as commander in chief lightly, much less be afraid to admit our mistakes. Integrity and honesty can end the war far more quickly than Bush’s braggadocio.

Going Upriver reveals a young man whose greatness is beginning to shine. If we elect John Kerry President, I now believe that his character will likely produce a presidency that we can rank as one of the great ones. If you have been ambivalent about Kerry, I urge you to see this movie and see what he is really made of beyond sound bites and political ads. This man was tested and he stood as an example of great courage.

The Alpha Factor

published by OpEdNews.com
Humans have evolved sophisticated neural software that allows us to interpret and manipulate the world in new ways, creating everything from symphonies to iPods. Socially, though, we are mainly governed by the software that ruled our ancestors. In short, we now think like humans but often make our social choices more like apes. That is why the alpha factor plays such a key role in social decisions like electing leaders.

Pack animals such as dogs recognize the alpha factor instinctively. Even dogs that are physically larger will defer to an acknowledged alpha once a dominance hierarchy is established. These hierarchies allow for smooth social functioning and easily coordinated effort, which has evolutionary advantages for the social group.

Among our closest relatives, the alpha gorilla provides the center pillar around which the rest of the troop moves and feels secure. His dominance gives coherence to the troop. Humans, as social animals, retain much of the same patterning.

While the current Presidential contest may seem to be about policies and ideologies and a host of other rational subjects, the emotional subtext is often more important. In a President, our more primitive brain centers are still looking for alpha dominance. That is why face-to-face debates are so vital. They allow our lower brain centers a chance to see which candidate is alpha dominant over the other – who will be better at providing that ordering function at the top of the troop?

In modern politics, alpha dominance is not established by ramming antler racks or chest thumping or slashing at each other with ivory tusks. It is established by a combination of intelligence and talent and perhaps most importantly, presence. Factors such as height also play an important role in assessing dominance, which is why height is one of the single best predictors of victory in elections.

However, there is something subtler at work as well, something conveyed in tone of voice, posture, emotional reactivity, and defensiveness. Once someone is defensive, the other person has seized the alpha position. We interpret this as being commanding or presidential, but stripped of a euphemistic glaze, we are really talking about dominance. Who is in charge?

When any two alphas meet, there is typically a subtext of testing each other’s power – ideological challenges, name dropping, showing off money or social status. A quick wit and quick mind are assets in establishing alpha dominance . There is a jockeying for position. Most alphas will avoid naked confrontation with another alpha, unless the terms of engagement are weighted to their advantage. The powerful CEO might invite another alpha type to meet him, but do so in an imposing office, with lush furnishings and an ornate desk. This ensures his dominance.

Because Bush is the President of the United States, he has a range of forces to draw from to maintain dominance. He has advisors and spin-doctors, handlers and script-writers, bodyguards and spokesmen, all of whom create an insulated cocoon in which his dominance is unchallenged. He has vast amounts of money at his disposal to carefully craft public messages.

In last night’s debate, however, the rules were set up in a way that allowed Bush no structural advantage: same size podium, identical amounts of time to respond, no cheering from the audience, no preparation for the questions in advance. America was given a chance to see if Bush could retain his alpha dominance in a head-to-head situation rather than in situations that have been carefully crafted and insulated.

And the result was that Kerry established clear alpha dominance. Kerry won the alpha factor hands down. He stood resolute and powerful, with an impressive command of facts, speaking without pause or flaw. Bush squirmed, meandered, looked nervous, whined, repeated himself, and generally looked annoyed. He had all the hallmarks of a man who has taken his alpha status for granted and is discombobulated by a situation where he is outclassed.

While that may not have immediately won Kerry votes, it will definitely shift the psychology of the race. For the first time, the American people who are not blinding themselves with partisanship could see that Kerry has more alpha factor than Bush. Period. Bush may be more aggressive. He may remain more accessible and likable for some people. But he was alpha-dogged, plain and simple. And in the primitive brain centers of social animals such as humans, that lodges deep.

Since Bush is running on his ability to be a resolute and strong commander-in-chief, the exposure of his second-tier status is a devastating blow. Watch for Karl Rove to pull him from subsequent debates with a convenient excuse. They simply cannot afford for the image of Kerry as the stronger alpha to be seared into the American psyche. They will attempt to gain control of situations again and create an artificial bubble of power, such as during the carefully crafted Republic National Convention.

However, everyone who watched the debate has now smelled weakness. Reporters who have been afraid to REALLY do their job smelled it. Swing voters smelled it. And political consultants smelled it as well. Now that Bush has been revealed as the beta in a head-to-head match, reporters will likely swoop in and start hitting Bush much, much harder. Pent-up resentment of the alpha can rush in now that it is safe.

Bush’s debate performance last night had the feeling of the Dean Scream in Iowa – it was a moment in which Bush could no longer assume the mantle of looking presidential. I was beginning to think Bush’s victory was assured but after so clearly losing the alpha factor last night, I expect a barrage of attacks that weakens him further. He is now on the defensive. One way to win the power back is to become the alpha in the next debate, which is increasingly unlikely. More likely, Rove will attempt dirty tricks to undermine the new alpha’s status. However it pans out, if Kerry retains alpha status through November 2nd, we can expect to see a new president.