Book Review: Letter to a Christian Nation, submitted by Doctor J

Another fine book review by Doctor J. And I like his advice that, "you must buy this book. You must read it. Then read it again. Then give it away to someone who needs to read it...and ask them to do the same." If you are stimulated by this book and the topic--pick up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins--also a current best-seller.


In this short book—91 pages—author Sam Harris explains to American Christians that he does not accept their religious belief because of its lack of intellectual rigor. That is, he has no faith in religion because it cannot be touched, tested and verified. More importantly, Harris (above) warns of the danger Christianity poses to our society and the world. Of course there are many kinds of Christians—dozens of denominations and myriad levels of intensity and fundamentalism. Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006) invites everyone, Christian and otherwise, to read and talk about their ideas in the spirit of open and learned discourse. Herein lies the rub. There are Christians who won't read this work because they are forbidden to engage in open and learned discourse, much less have ideas. These are the most dogmatic creationists, those who believe the world was created only six thousand years ago and look forward to the time when it will be gloriously destroyed as a prelude to their Man-God's return to save all true believers and damn the rest to eternal suffering. These people won't read this book due to the fear instilled in them by those who claim to speak for their god—a vengeful Father-God who prohibits any opening of eyes and minds to any interpretation of reality other than its own. The rest of the Christians, and those of us in other categories—the more reasonable, the less frightened, the less hateful, the more open-minded ones—will read it, fortunately, and will consider its straightforward ideas regarding religion, belief, and reality. And when we have done so it is our charge to find a way to keep the fundamentalists from taking over this country and destroying it in the name of their god.

This may sound alarmist, but Harris cites public opinion surveys that show 53% of Americans are literal creationists who believe the Earth to have been created from dust and divinity about six thousand years ago. Fifty-three percent of anything is a big number so, yes, these people already shape our society and institutions and they are not shy about their agenda to dominate it entirely. The creationist agenda includes (but is not limited to) the destruction of science education, to be replaced with so-called intelligent design; the destruction of a woman's right to control her own body by gutting, then strangling, and finally killing Roe v Wade; the display of religious icons in public places (such as the Christian Ten Commandments in public schools and government buildings) to indoctrinate and threaten society at large and—you may wish to sit down for this—to hasten the end of the physical world so their beloved Man-God can return, give them their well-deserved heavenly splendor for being such good followers, and perpetually punish everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Sure, this sounds crazy. There's a good reason for that, but here's the really alarming part. These people vote en masse. Scarier still, they get elected or appointed to office themselves (G.W. Bush and John Ashcroft come quickly to mind) and bring this apocalyptic wet dream to the job with them. Fundamentalist Christians WANT THE WORLD TO END. They dream of it, they pray for it, they live for it. And they base all their belief in this end as a desirable one on a literal interpretation of a book.

These fundamentalists, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS remember, believe a book written by dozens of authors over scores of years is the literal word of their god. You may have heard of it. It's called the Bible. This book, a collection of letters, sermons, essays, parables, warnings and more than a few quite unintelligible ramblings, has been edited and re-edited dozens of times, whole chapters banished and others added at intervals spanning centuries. It contradicts itself hundreds of times as a result. Yet we must live our lives according to its every word or we get no reward when the end we so desire arrives.

OK, says Harris, let's live by this book. God says, when one's child is "out of line" we must beat him with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23: 13-14). If he "talks back to us, we should kill him"(Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13 and Matthew 15:4-7). Can any of us honestly say we would be alive today if our parents had followed these edicts? Add to this that "we must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images…and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes." Which of us shall cast that first stone at the homosexual? The Christian political official who cheats on his spouse? The fundamentalist Wal-Mart employee who works on Sunday? The creationist schoolchild who pledges allegiance to the flag each day? What about the gay politician who leads the pledge of allegiance in a workplace on a Sunday campaign stop? Is there anyone more worthy of public execution? What about anyone who has ever masturbated? They are condemned to be killed by their communities as well. Let he who has not done that cast the first stone. Come on. I dare you. I thought so. Yet 53% of Americans profess to believe this and live their lives accordingly. Of course they tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow literally. You can bet most don't kill their children even if it means their eternal damnation. You can also bet if you masturbate they'll cry out for yours.

That archaeology has proven the Sumerians discovered glue almost 7000 years ago—a thousand years before the Earth was created according to creationist belief—won’t dent the thought process of this majority, or their elected favorites. This is a profoundly disturbing reality. Stone-age technology and culture are well-documented on five continents. That's more than ten thousand years ago. Dinosaurs? The entire idea is either a secular, scientific, liberal humanist, Darwinist conspiracy or they were on the ark with two of everything else. And if you don't belief this you are denying god and banished from its heaven. Worse, you are delaying the great catastrophe that will bring the end to this universe and fucking up everyone else's rapture. Who do you think you are? Again, this is 53% of Americans. How does one rationally argue with another individual who is so deeply psychotic as to ignore verifiable reality because it denies his hopes of fire and brimstone hurled by a hateful god at people who disagree with them? How does one argue with a majority of his countrymen who are locked into this self- and other-destructive mentality?

In an effort to begin this dialogue I could ask questions, as Harris does, of the Ten Commandments (universal to all religions in tone, Christians are the only ones to have these handed down in stone), of Christianity's views regarding morality and atheism (Hitler was a proud Christian and is, presumably, in heaven today. As an atheist, I have no chance to go, a rather comforting thought, really. Who wants to spend eternity with Hitler?) and, especially, of Christianity's assault on science, reason, and logic, i.e. evolution. But that may discourage you from buying this book.

And you must buy this book. And you must read it. Then read it again. Then give it away to someone who needs to read it (and everyone needs to read it) and ask them to do the same. Yes, it's that important. No other developed nation on earth, says Harris, believes in a literal interpretation of a religious text to the extent Americans do with their Christian Bible. "Our country," he writes, "now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant. Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying." Literal Christians are a numerical majority and as such constitute the single most dangerous threat to our nation and the world today. It is the duty of all rational, thinking people to understand that threat. This book is the primer for that education.

In my world you are, of course, free to believe Harris' arguments or not, just as you are free to believe in literal creationism. In a creationist's world you are not free to consider anything but the literal word, contradictory and inhumane and hateful as it is. But you do owe it to yourself and to all of us to look at both sides. Then decide which world you want to live in. One world is controlled by people who will buy any story on faith, follow any rule out of fear, pay any tithe, deny any reality, hate anyone their magic book and its un-seeable, untouchable, unknowable god tells them to. The other is a world where ideas are shared, considered, debated, verified or rejected by observation and analysis, and ultimately respected. One world denies reality, the other investigates it. One world seeks death, the other life. The choice is an easy one for rational people.

Christianity, like all religions, was invented between 8000 and 6000 years ago, after human beings had adopted agriculture as a social and economic system. A steadier food supply, more permanent dwellings, and a rhythmic work schedule allowed far more free time than was available to their hunter-gatherer ancestors and this free time was used, in part, to develop a psychological relationship with nature. Part of that process was the invention of gods. This occurred in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas all, more or less, about the same time. Man invented God about two thousand years before creationists believe that God invented Man. These are traceable, testable and verifiable facts.

Poor Jesus Christ. He comes along and has his name attached to a generally decent set of ideas, thousands of years in the making, adding his own charge to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Then, over the next 2000 years, small-minded, power-mad, hateful people take that long history and positive message and turn it into bullshit that serves only to divide as it begs destruction for all who disagree with it. It almost makes me wish I was wrong. It makes me wish he was actually coming back. I'd love to see the look on his face when he sees what these people have done, and are doing, in his name. But, of course, he's not coming back. Lucky for them.

Reading Poetry by M.J. Workman

What a lovely essay by our fiction writer M.J. Workman. After digesting this post, I know many of you will be inspired to find some poetry to read. Or even better, to write something yourself and present it at a local open reading night. We all look forward to more poetry discussions from Mr. Workman.

The philosopher Nietzsche wrote a brilliant essay called “The Use and Abuse of History.” I haven’t read it in years. But I don’t have to—I can remember what he said about art and literature. Far too often, said Nietzsche (“for that was his name,” as a student of mine once said after mentioning Emerson in the first line of a paper) teachers and would-be shapers of thought inadvertently use art to kill art. They present Emerson or Shakespeare (for that was his name) or some other genius and proceed to demonstrate the “true” meaning of the poem or essay.

I can remember how mortifyingly dumb I felt in my first college English classes. I would read a poem, say, form an opinion of its meaning only to have the learned professor so explain the poem that I felt like a certified dunce. The subtext of the earnest teacher’s words were seared into my brain: the poet was a genius and I’m not. So get used to the idea that you had better never try to write poetry. Irony: of course the professor meant to be inspiring us to love literature and read it for the rest of our lives, the notion being that once we were taught the correct way to read one abstruse poem we would be able, on our loney, loney, to read and “understand” true art.

Now Nietzsche himself isn’t exactly hammock reading, to quote another one of my former students, but his point in “The Use and Abuse of History” is clear. By holding up masterpieces to untutored minds and deciphering them, the student is likely to walk away feeling like crap, knowing that poetry sucks, and that he or she could never create anything worthwhile, whether as a poet or composer or whatnot. So, don’t even think about it big boy. Have you considered dentistry? And it pays a lot more than poetry writing. So does plumbing.

But the irony is only half complete. Virtually no one reads poetry for pleasure—it’s “hard work,” to quote our Commander in Chief—but millions of scribblers, usually girls under the age of 17, write stuff that rhymes. No one, apparently, has told them that no one today who knows a lick about poetry obsesses much over rhyming. What used to be dismissed by some as “blank verse” has carried the day, much to the chagrin of some old fogies who once taught, “lit tra chure.”

To help me make my case I summon to the witness box none other than Billy Collins, America’s poet laureate a few years back. He writes in his Introduction to his readers in his influential anthology of contemporary verse, “Poetry 180: A Turning Back to Poetry” (2003).

“I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out.

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with a rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.”

There’s more, much more from the pen of the hugely talented and influential Mr. Collins. I promise to call on him for inspiration often and promise and to quote him and others in the future. So, for now (to borrow the late, great political commentator, Edward R. Murrow’s signature sign off) “Goodnight, and Good Luck.” M.J. Workman has other poets and some people you might not be accustomed to thinking of as poets up his sleeve whom he promises to discuss and quote in future columns. The Lord willing, as my mother would say.

mjworkman39@yahoo.com

On Fighting the System

I have been planning to write a post on the antiwar movement (or lack thereof) for some time now. My friend, and frequent Books and Bait contributor, Enrico Salvatore (Ratso) Rizzo even sent me several recently published articles on the topic (here and here). And on this past Saturday, as you probably all know, there was huge antiwar march in Washington D.C.

As I reflected further on this topic, however, broader questions and themes kept creeping into my mind. For the most part, the past few decades have been discouraging for our side. The left has gained little and our constituents have not done well either. My thoughts began to focus on questions of what we should be doing things differently. And of more importance, what is our mission (the left) and what can we hope to achieve in this skewed political system of ours?

Forget the immediate issues for just a moment. American society is and has always been dominated by an entrenched elite. Generally speaking, that elite is wealthy, white, and male (the patriarchy); heterosexual and Christian. And these folks want to hold onto their power--don't forget this for one minute. Then there are those of us who wish to dramatically change and/or alter this corrupt American system. From Daniel Shays, to the abolitionists, to the women's suffrage movement, to the Black Panthers....."leftists" have been trying to challenge the elites for hundreds of years. But have we made any progress?

Fighting these powerful interests is a 24/7, lifetime job. Yet, as difficult as it seems, the elites must always know we are out there. If we weren't, what would happen? Take a Jimmy Stewart/It's a Wonderful Life view at what the country would look like without us. There would be wars being waged constantly (which is actually pretty close to reality). Would there be money for social programs, I really doubt those greedy elitist bastards would fork over anything for pregnant teens or the homeless if they didn't have to. Would they pay a decent wage or would they just go where the cheapest labor was located (isn't that Globalization)? A national religion? Wiretaps, free speech, police-state......? You get the point.

These people are extremely ruthless. And every time we seem to make some progress, they make adjustments--adapting to our small gains. They are also experts at using their minions in the media to spread their propaganda: patriotism, nationalism, god, religion, and all that classless society crap.

So where are we--and where did this rant begin? It's easy to get discouraged about the Iraq War, it's still going on and more troops are being dispatched. The antiwar movement has not been as strong as we might have hoped, The rich are getting richer, and the poor are gaining little. And the fundamentalist wackos in South Dakota are proposing yet another anti-choice law. But we have to keep at 'em, every single, solitary day. We have to stand toe-to-toe with the system and demonstrate that we aren't going to quit, because that's exactly what the elites want. They think they can wear us down--keep us holed up at our desks with new consumer goods to make us happy. And every time we let our guard down, they solidify their power just a little bit more.

Read, write, blog, bitch, scream, think revolutionary thoughts, protest, question authority, boycott products, volunteer at a homeless shelter, talk to friends, yell, attend meeting, join organizations, take to the streets, give money, listen, speak, ask questions, reflect on the powerless, and get damned angry about those who have held the power in this country for much too long. And when one of their mindless foot soldiers laughs and suggests that your protest, boycott, or letter to the editor doesn't matter--think otherwise. It does matter--it matters to them.

I don't expect the system to change too much in the next 40-50 years (that would be my lifetime I hope). But I plan to keep trying while also being a general pain-in-the-ass to the power structure and all of its supporters. Howard Zinn (pictured below) was once asked how he maintains his positive attitude when things seem to be so bad in this country for progressives. Zinn said, you lose, you lose, you lose, and then you win! And you keep doing that over and over. Their side holds the power, we don't. We have to work that much harder to get what we want.

Some Reading Material on "Fighting the System"

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Michael T. Klare, War Without End
Emma Goldman, Living My Life
Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival
anything by Howard Zinn or Jonathan Kozol

Impeachment

I want to thank my friend Harry Lime, who has a penchant for finding marvelous Internet information. Harry has been sending me some great items on two current topics of interest: impeachment, and Bush as a war criminal. Today, I would like to discuss the impeachment issue. Thanks Harry!

Most of us Democrats know that Bush will not be impeached. He deserves it! But the leaders in our party are still afraid of so many things--they would never try something this bold. They will wring their collective hands and talk about "reaching across the aisle" to work with the Republicans. They wouldn't want to make anyone mad. Besides, when the Republicans were in power, they were always 'reaching across the aisles" to work with Democrats.....right? Oh well, at least allow me the satisfaction of examining impeachment in the abstract.

Elizabeth Holtzman makes a strong argument for impeachment in a recent issue of The Nation. If you remember, Congresswomen Holtzman (D-NY) played a key role in the House impeachment proceedings against President Nixon. She run unsuccessfully for the U.S. senate in 1980. And had it not been for a pathetic third-party effort by Jacob Javits, Ms. Holtzman would probably have defeated Alfonse D'Amato--thus sparing us eighteen years of his clown-like antics.

In her lengthy essay, Holtzman (pictured at right) first lists some of the charges against Bush: his "scorn for our international treaty obligations," the torture scandals, and the obvious lies leading to the Iraq War. The Iraq lies and the subsequent chaos brought about by those policies seem to be enough to impeach. But according to Holtzman, there is more, writing that:

"But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interest of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate."

President Bush blatantly violated the law--a felony in this particular case. Does the "average American citizen" understand this--does he/she care? I sure hope so. When President Nixon did these same things, he also used national security as a justification. But it was clear then that Nixon was only after his domestic political opponents--those Dirty Hippies who were against his war. Those illegal wiretaps, however, did become part of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The Bush thugs and bullies have used a variety of illegal methods to hold on to their illegitimate power and conduct their activities. Holtzman offers us all a much-needed civics lesson:

"Ours is a government of limited power. We learn in elementary school the concept of checks and balances. Those checks do not vanish in wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not swallow up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights. ... As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, 'A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.'"

As I mentioned, I am not expecting this to happen. But we can still act! There are many groups now organized in support of impeachment--go to their web sites and read what they have to say. In addition, we can contact our elected representatives and demand that they at least investigate these abuses of power by the Bush criminals. We can be angry about what has taken place. In fact, we should all write to the White House and just tell the evil bastard to quit. You think he would do it if enough of us wrote? Holtzman ends her essay with this,

"President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy."

The following links can get you started:

Impeach For Peace

Impeach Bush Coalition

After Downing Street

The Only Thing I Support Is Peace

I have been thinking about this topic for some time now--and then fortunately this week, I discovered an article that mirrors my own views, and I hope, the feeling of many others.

I am, and have been, extremely uncomfortable with the "I Support the Troops" mantra. I do know several things for sure:

1. I have never supported this illegal and immoral war.
2. I don't want anyone to die in this war (and I don't just mean Americans).
3. I don't support U.S. imperialism and occupation of other nations.
4. This nation has, and still does, commit atrocious war crimes.
5. I really don't give a rat's ass if people think I am unpatriotic.

But many of us on the antiwar left have been perplexed and paralyzed when the "troops" argument is used--which is precisely why it is made by the warmongering Republicans. They know that talking about the troops makes us uneasy. And to make political matters worse, our response has been weak at best.

Well someone on the left finally said what we all should have said long ago. Joe Mowrey's article in Dissident Voice, "Don't Support Our Troops" should be required reading for all of the antiwar left. Mowrey accurately criticizes the antiwar movement for falling into the trap constructed by the Bush thugs. As Mowrey writes,

"At a time when what we need most is frank and honest discussion about the imperialist role the United States plays in the nightmare of global violence and militarization, what we see instead is an effort on the part of the antiwar movement to play politics with language (that would be the feeble "Bring Them Home Now" response). Rather than having the courage to reject platitudes, we attempt to stake out some imagined middle ground of justice and the rule of law."

Mowrey goes on to point out that,

"we have allowed our military to become a criminal element that is rampaging around the globe inflicting death and destruction on innocent populations."

And what of our troops--we do want them home right? And we do support them. Yes, but we also want to stop them from being used as pawns by the military imperialists in the United States. The author concludes his essay by suggesting that we should support and welcome the troops when:

"our military is no longer committing war crimes, when we are in compliance with basic standards of human rights and social justice, then we can break out the bumper stickers and ribbons and say 'Support Our Troops.'"

To all my friends on the antiwar left: If we don't say these type of things, who will? If we worry about being labeled unpatriotic, if we worry about the political implications of our views, if we worry about making enemies--then we will never bring about real change in this corrupt system of ours. If we are going to wring our hands and fret about making someone mad, we might as well stay out of politics. The military bullies have always tried to intimidate and demean peace activists. If we can't even articulate our own views because of "public opinion anxiety" we become part of the problem ourselves--or as Mowrey suggests:

"We can become a model of egalitarian compassion in the world instead of a bloodthirsty juggernaut spewing death and destruction in the wake of its imperialistic ambitions. Until then, every American, as well as our military, are guilty of crimes against peace."

Why I am Pro-Choice

I thank all of the Buddy's Books and Bait readers who submitted "Blog for Choice" responses. If you have additional remarks, please feel free to use the comment section at the end of the following posts. dew

I am pro-choice because......Women should have full and complete control over our bodies. No one--not church, not state, not church masquerading as state--should usurp that right. And I am pro-choice because my parents raised me right! L.P


I'm pro-choice for 3 reasons that I can articulate:
1. It is THE right thing to do;
2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-I don't want others telling me how to care for my body and I'll try not to tell them how to care for their body;
3. As a man I see everything from a different perspective. I will never know what it is like to be pregnant, carry a baby, deliver a baby or experience any of the other things that are associated with pregnancy. I will do my best to be as understanding as possible, but I still view all of those experiences through a different set of lenses. For me this perspective just makes point #2 stronger. Taber


Duh! Pamela


When so-called pro-lifers come out against capital punishment [where innocents are killed due to incorrect evidence, racism, and botched investigations]; against the NRA and the gun lobby; and against deceitful and unnecessary wars that kill thousands of innocents, maybe then will I take a serious look at the "principles" that gave rise to the pro-life, anti-abortion movement.
-Ratzo Rizzo (St. Paul, MN)



I am pro-choice because I'm really just trying to manage my own business and am not interested in everybody else's. Amy Brugh

I have always believed......always, that the primary aim of the anti-abortion crowd is the social, cultural, and professional subjugation of American women. These twisted reactionaries want to put women “in their place” and take the country back to some idealized time when women served men, took care of the family, and understood their place in society. And the right-wingers have always known that once women finally secured certain freedoms, like reproductive and sexual rights, society would adapt, changes would be swift, and control over women would cease. The outcome, in their sick minds, would be devastating—women would join the work force, run for office, speak out on social issues, and even challenge the authority of the husbands. Hell on earth!!!!!

That’s why we must never compromise with these perverse individuals. They care little about fetuses--what they want is power. And believe me, these right-wingers stay up nights lamenting and shedding tears over what has happened since the 1960s: women’s rights, feminism, racially-mixed marriages, gay marriages, civil rights. These fools are still hoping for a return to that John Wayne, “Father Knows Best” society of some past time.

That’s why choice is critical and that’s why we need to remain diligent and fight them on every single, solitary reproductive rights issue. If choice ends, what will happen to women’s wages and other opportunities? I think we all know (these things are already skewed). And what about the number of women in public office, family leave legislation, professional and academic prospects—do you think those gains would remain? They want to rip it all down, brick-by-brick.....but we can’t allow it.

Yes, I am for choice. I happen to believe in absolute, unequivocable women's rights....period. No caveats, no "men and women are made differently" arguments, and no silly bible references on this subject. I, for one, don’t wish to live in some kind of white male, fundamentalist Christian “Handmaid’s Tale” theocracy. But if we let our guard down, and we decide to compromise with these folks on anything, that might just happen. ppmccoy

Why I am Pro-Choice, by Doctor J

It's all in the name we have chosen to assign to this, isn't it?

Pro—in favor of; Choice—a basic human right as guaranteed under the Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights. In several places in the Bill of Rights, as a matter of fact. Leaving the details aside (they are there for all to see), the Constitution protects a human beings' right to choose what happens to them (death, taxes and conscription aside). That should be enough.

But don't forget about the Declaration of Independence. True, that document is a philosophical statement, not a body of law, but Americans have come to base their values, and policy, on it. Especially on the part that bestows "certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Of course, the pursuit of happiness doesn't apply here. This is simply a euphemism for property. Ask Benjamin Franklin, he'll tell you. What makes us happy? Stuff. Money. Property, broadly defined. (If one is a selfish gluttonous simpleton.) It is our right, said the Founders, to pursue what makes us happy, that is, wealth. Debatable, to say the least, as to whether such a right should be so celebrated. But, as to the others….

The Right of Life is not the right to define, by law or otherwise, every sperm and every ovum as human life with full rights. That's patently ridiculous. Put a sperm or an ovum out on the streets all by itself and see how it fends. Can it pay the rent? Contribute to the tax base to help provide schools and health care and national security? Give directions to the State Theater? Breathe? Eat? Sustain? Of course not.

The Right of Life means the right to choose one's life and lifestyle, to make one's own way, to self-identify, to go as far as one's talents will allow in whatever productive, socially responsible way one chooses, relatively unencumbered by governmental or religious institution, whether benign or tyrannical. Ask Thomas Jefferson. He'll tell you.

The Right of Liberty is not the right to do whatever one wants regardless of the consequences, but to do what's best for one's self within the context of what also benefits others and society as a whole. You can't kill a guy and steal his riches. Good for you, perhaps, but not so good for him. And a bad example to society at large.

The Right of Liberty allows us to choose for ourselves the kind of Life we want, as long as it does not impinge on the choices others make. It, then, insures that one may abort an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. It may indeed be what is good for that person at that point in her life. It may even save her life. Liberty allows us to do what is in our best interests as long as it does not harm others or society as a whole. Those who claim that abortion does harm others and society have yet to provide a reasonable example to back that claim.

So, I am Pro-Choice not for emotional reasons (it's none of my business, is it, what people do in their private lives as long as it doesn’t impinge on my Life or Liberty), or religious reasons (religion has no place in governance, see the Constitution), or economic reasons (don't you love the idiotic argument that all those abortions would have grown into employees and taxpayers, so abortion drains our long term economy? How many of them would have become serial killers? Alcoholics? Child molesters? Vice Presidents of the United States from Wyoming? Or worse?).

I am Pro-Choice because that is what America is about. It's in our philosophy, our code, our sacred texts. One cannot be American without being Pro-Choice.

It's all in the name we have chosen to assign to this, isn't it?

Pro-Life. How could any reasonable person argue with someone who is in favor of Life? Because they are not. Those who stand on the Pro-Life label are actually standing on ANTI-basic human rights as stated in the Declaration and guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, they are un-American. And that makes them dangerous. They do not share the foundational American values of our Founders or our present day society (public opinion polling proves the latter unequivocally). To allow Pro-Life to be used as a name is to be unpatriotic, even treasonous. These people might better be called Against American Values and Human Rights. Because that's what they are. Ask Thomas Jefferson. He'll tell you.

Doctor J

M.J. Workman Says.....

I would like you all to welcome our fiction writer and critic M.J. Workman. In today's post, he introduces himself and tells us about his past and his interests. Expect many more interesting contributions from M.J. Workman. If you have comments, leave them in the comments section, or email Workman at mjworkman39@yahoo.com

“Who is this M. J. Workman, and what does he want?” The question boomeranged in the nearly empty greasy spoon posing as a restaurant. I was a fresh-faced professor, new to the Pennsylvania liberal arts college where I would teach for the next 37 years. I had just walked up to the coffee table and had been introduced to several academic looking types—each smoking a pipe, wearing a tie and a tweed jacket, the uniform (in those days) of the professoriate. After I sat down, ordered my coffee from a take-no-prisoners waitress who’d seen about all life at the bottom had to offer—I heard again the voice of brass that, thank God, tinkled with humorous grace, “I demand to know, who is this Workman, and what does he want?”

Everyone at the table burst into laughter. The question had been asked in a voice of mock irony from one of the college’s most beloved and cultured teachers who, I’d learn, knew as much about opera, classical music, English literature and gardening as he did about his academic “field,” Greek and Latin. He stood up, extended a welcoming hand and said he wanted to know, in twenty-five words or less, what I did, what I hoped to teach those “ungrateful wretches,” meaning our students. (Yes, college professors talk like that; if they (we) didn’t, we’d blow our brains out, believe me.)

His question was—and is—a fair one: who am I and what do I want from writing this literary column? I am, as Hamlin Garland (now an unread American novelist of the late nineteenth century) wrote “a son of the middle border,” a child of the Midwest, with deep roots in the working class, thanks to my parents, and thanks to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote. Up until the time I graduated from high school I had been a jerk and a jock. But in my freshman year in college I caught the fever of education—real book learnin’ and thinkin’ and talkin’. I wanted to be a psychologist and cure crazy people since there were a few nutty ones barely hanging onto my family tree. I had already resolved not to be like them.

History, good old-fashioned Western Civ. (now given the boot by the field marshals of Political Correctness) won my heart. Psychology was shoved aside for the time being while I put on the full armor of History. In time, I earned a doctorate—my “union card”—that fitted me out just fine for a tweed coat, pipe, brief case, and tenure in a pretty fair college. While “professing” history I read Freud and William James and theologians such as Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr. They and social philosophers like John Dewey and Walter Lippmann fascinated me. In time, I learned to love novels and, much later, poetry. I dug around in dusty old books and microfilmed newspapers and wrote several serious biographies of important literary figures and even had the temerity to write a memoir about coming of age in America’s heartland in the 1950s.

Now retired and removed to a much warmer, sunnier clime, I loaf around a lot, but devour fiction, read and reread well-written memoirs and biographies. And I’m a sucker for reading the published letters of good writers—more on all this in later columns. Old habits died hard: I still mark up the books I read and note words that are unknown to me. But now it’s time for confession. I no longer worship Clio, goddess of history. Goodbye History. Been there, done that. More confession: I write a bit of poetry when the mood strikes me. Will I be brave enough in the future to share some of my poetry with you? Don’t know. Maybe.

So, now you know M.J. Workman and what he wants. I am consumed by a greedy, expanding desire to learn (I’m “into” the writings of C.G Jung at the moment and hang with some fellow Jungians here in my town.). Though retired from my academic pulpit, I still yearn to twist and shout exhorting others to listen up to what I have been learning. Be warned: this column will be my soapbox, my pulpit, and my lectern. I’ll hold forth loudly until my throat gives out.

Blog For Choice Day--January 22

As many of you may know, January 22 marks the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On that day, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Bush v. Choice are sponsoring the second annual Blog for Choice. During last year's initial event, pro-choice bloggers were asked to write/speak out on reproductive rights and health issues. Hundreds responded with posts concerning their experiences and opinions. This year's topic is a simple one: "Tell us, and your readers, why you are pro-choice."

So make sure to get involved in this day of activism for reproductive rights. This is a chance to raise the profile of these critical issues in the blogosphere and the media.

You can email me (dew) with your pro-choice stories and I will post all of them on January 22. Or you can leave your narrative in the comment section of the blog.

By the way, there are a number of great blog links on the Bush v. Choice site. Blogs have been registering to participate in Blog for Choice Day (including Books and Bait). All of those feminist, leftist blog links are included on that single page--makes for some fascinating reading.

Fiction Writer and Critic

Buddy's Books and Bait is pleased and excited to now have a fiction writer/critic on staff. On Friday, our fiction expert, the honorable and esteemed M.J. Workman, will post his first article--he will be introducing himself and discussing his academic background, interests, and some of his notions on fiction and literature. He will be submitting reviews, and also just contributing his intellectual random thoughts on books, poetry, and other aspects of the field.

2008, part I: The Ghost of Ed Muskie

For a while, I've been planning to intermittently post my thoughts on the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates and the approaching campaign--so here are my initial ruminations. I do realize it's all just pure speculation at this point, but there are some trends to start looking for. And as both a longtime political junkie and a historian, I might be able to add some insights.

Today I want deal with "the Myth" (coming from Washington pundits and the right-wing media) that says Democrats always destroy their own front-runners. The myth suggests that Democratic activists can be counted on to subvert the party's electoral chances by sabotaging the front-runner and nominating some wild and crazy liberal. Where did this myth originate and is it at all relevant for 2008?

Edmund Sixtus Muskie--remember him? Younger readers of Books and Bait probably have no idea who he was. Let me fill you in--and briefly explain why Muskie, for the past 35 years, has served as the poster-boy for the aforementioned myth. In 1968, Muskie (representing Maine in the U.S. senate), ran for Vice-President on the Democratic national ticket headed by sitting Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey. The Humphrey-Muskie team was narrowly defeated by the Republican ticket of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew (both future criminals by the way). But Muskie emerged as a fresh face who had campaign reasonably well--he was anointed the strong front-runner for 1972.

Trouble was, Muskie was actually a very poor candidate: boring, insipid, and not at all in-step with the changing Democratic party. He was the establishment candidate--an organizational man in a party brimming with diversity. In fact, by 1972, both liberals and moderates in the party were in no mood for another pro-war, traditional standard bearer. Muskie spent 4 years as the front-runner, gained all the necessary endorsements and raised millions. But he soon went down to a quick and crushing defeat in the early primaries. The soul of the party never accepted Muskie and they made it clear at the ballot box by selected George McGovern as their candidate.

This stunned the establishment (Mayor Daley and other party leaders), but they were probably on their way out anyway. This is where the myth started. The fact that McGovern was thrashed in November just added fuel to the legend. Now, every time a Democratic front-runner has trouble, the press resurrects old Ed Muskie and talks about how prevalent this is in the Democratic Party--how the silly activists on the left dominate the primaries and defeat the moderate/electable candidates by nominating these "McGovernites."

Yes, other Democratic front-runners have had some problems: Mondale had to deal with Gary Hart in 1984, and Howard Dean self-destructed in 2004--but no one crashed and burned like Muskie. Dean was still an semi-insurgent candidate, and his fall was is no way comparable to the Muskie self-destruction.

For those of you who are still with me--there is a reason I am bringing this up. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York is currently in much the same position as Muskie was in 1971-72:
-a strong front-runner
-lots of money
-support of many party leaders
-has been ahead in all the polls since 2004

Expect it folks--the pundits (especially the right-wingers) will soon revive the Ed Muskie tale and compare his fate with what they believe will befall Senator Clinton next year.

Well, we need to at least look at it--is it possible? Are there similarities and patterns--might we see a replay of 1972?

I will deal with this more in the next post on this topic. More to come on Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Muskie, McGovern and others.

By the way, for those of you who, like me, were zealous McGovern supporters (yes, I am that old), a great film/documentary was released last year on the 1972 McGovern campaign. If you get a chance, please rent One Bright Shining Moment. I, for one, remain extremely proud of the vote I cast in that election.

Same Old, Tired Antics from Republicans

The tired, sad, and pathetic Republican noise-machine is at it once again. It's what they do best.....actually, it's the only thing they do!

A rather benign exchange between Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, set off Republican alarms late last week. Boxer's children are too old to be fighting in Iraq (at least for now), and Rice has no children. Because of this, Boxer tried to make a point how neither one of their immediate families were directly affected by Bush's Iraq War escalation.

How could she say that, demanded the Republicans? Tony Snow called Boxer's comments "a great leap backwards for feminism." Rush Limbaugh accused Boxer of "trying to lynch" Rice right before Martin Luther King Day. Saying that Boxer had taken a swipe at all women who chose not to have kids, these long-time male chauvinists were actually attempting to stand up for feminists. No thanks! None of the feminists that I know want the FOX crowd or a bunch of white, male conservatives doing their political bidding.

But this worn-out ruckus is all the Republicans have these days. They can't govern, can't pass any domestic legislation, can't even begin to fathom public opinion, can't run a war, can't operate a coherent foreign policy.......they can't really do anything. Except.....these bullies can make sure if they hear something that even appears slightly controversial--they can yell and scream like privileged little children seeking attention. How dare the Democrats even question this war!

These pathetic losers tried this tactic when John Kerry made his infamous faux-pas before the November election. I said at the time that it would not help the Republicans, it might actually backfire. And it did! Why, because most of the country was wise to these depraved antics. And I was correct, the public didn't care what John Kerry said or didn't say; the public cared about how Bush and his Republican thugs were screwed up the country.

This is just more of the same from these dismal and wretched toughs. The Karl Rovian bully tactics don't work anymore. We have nothing to apologize for--(make sure to read these great comments by Feministing).






Books and Bait Lures: I hope you all enjoyed the book review by Doctor J last week. We now have a fiction reviewer who will be a regular contributor to the site--you will read more about that later in the week. In addition, another contributor is seriously considering keeping us informed on pending progressive/liberal legislation in Washington. I hope Books and Bait will be adding that to the site very soon. In the meantime, spread the word about this blog and submit some comments if you have the chance.
dew

In 1814 We Took a Little Trip.....

I was remiss earlier this week to mention an important historical anniversary--8 January 1814 was the Battle of New Orleans. For a nineteenth-century historian this is a disgraceful oversight. I thank my friend Spencer Johnson for the reminder.

For those who might have forgotten your early American history, I will offer a brief summary. The Battle of New Orleans actually took place after the War of 1812 had ended. The Treaty of Ghent was signed on the preceding Christmas Eve. But communications were obviously slower in those days.

On 15 December 1814, the British army under General Packenham, landed and moved to take New Orleans. Americans forces there were commanded by General Andrew Jackson, who led a rather motley crew of army regulars, sailors, pirates, Creoles, free blacks, and Tennessee and Kentucky volunteers.

After several smaller skirmishes, Packenham launched a full assault on 8 January 1815. The British numbered 5300 elite troops. But Jackson and his irregulars were waiting behind strong earthwork fortifications at Rodriguez Canal. When the British troops appeared out of the morning fog, American rifles, muskets, and artillery inflicted tremendous damage and casualties on the enemy. Twice the British regrouped and attacked. Packenham himself was killed in the battle. In two hours, the British suffered 291 killed, 1262 wounded, and 484 captured or missing. The American losses were 13 killed, 39 wounded, and 19 missing.

While the Battle of New Orleans did not effect the peace, it gave the Americans something to cheer about after a war with few highlights. And it made Old Hickory a national hero, vaulting him into the presidency thirteen years later.

Book Review: 3 Nights in August, submitted by Doctor J

Books and Bait Readers: I am pleased and excited today to present our first book review. This wonderful critique was written by Doctor J (internet sobriquet). In real life, he is an esteemed college History professor, an avid baseball fan, and a truly engaging and captivating individual. I am hopeful Doctor J will be composing more reviews in the very near future.........

The early winter holiday break from my job at a small college affords me a nice block of time to catch up on my reading—especially in years like this one where there is no snow to play in. Or at least that's the idea. This year I received a short, well crafted book as a gift which so captured my attention that I found myself reading, no savoring, it so slowly (so as not to lose the relationship with it) that I found little time or inclination to read much else. Of course, that says more about the reader than the read, and is borderline pathetic, so we'll not dwell on that.

3 Nights in August, by Buzz Bissinger, (Mariner Books, 2006) is in the mold of his more famous Friday Night Lights, the tale of Texas high school football recently made famous by Hollywood. This study of baseball in its purest form—the three game series—is ideal for the novice or casual fan who wishes to understand the game better and manna for true believers. It could be highly instructive for the cretin-American population, the mantra of which is "baseball is boring," if that lot's eyes could possibly be opened to the sublime beauty of their nation's pastime (which of course they can't, having been trained to stare blindly at the mechanical grid of football and the 'drive fast turn left' mind-numbingly idiotic symmetry of NASCAR. Getting this mob to appreciate the fine art that is baseball is, I suspect, much like expecting a right wing Christian to give a fair read of Nietzsche or Chomsky. But enough of that. Too much like shooting fish in a barrel anyway.)

Baseball is all about relationships and this is made clear by Bissinger in his subtitle: 'Strategy, Heartbreak, and Joy: Inside the Mind of a Manager.' That the manager is Tony LaRussa, current skipper of the St. Louis Cardinals, most recent World Series champion, gave me pause (again, more about the reader than the read). LaRussa is a self-promoter, first and foremost. A previous "baseball through the eyes of following a manager around" effort, a pretentious tome penned by George Will entitled Men at Work, was instructive and entertaining in a Will-like way, but not really a baseball book. It was, instead, a leadership book, trapped in X's and O's and the overly-preachy Seven Successful Habits genre. I was correct to be wary about 3 Nights, but happily incorrect in being judgmental.

This is, instead, a quite worthy book about the relationships in baseball; between a manager and his players, yes, but between players and teammates, players and adversaries and, especially, between a player and himself. There is a dynamic on a baseball club that forms a whole greater than the sum of its parts, sometimes positive and sometimes not. The same can be said for the individual player. Take, for example, J.D. Drew, bonus baby extraordinaire, described here as maybe "too talented, that it (the game) comes too easily to him. He plays with little outward passion, gliding through because even when he glides through, he still gets enough hits and enough home runs to make about three and half million dollars a year." (The Boston Red Sox offered Drew ten million a year several weeks ago.) Drew has never reached his potential because he lacks the passion great players need, but it doesn't seem to matter to him. (Who can argue? If I could make millions at 75% effort I think I'd settle too.)

It's this kind of insight—often in the form of punches not pulled—that make 3 Nights such an illuminating and interesting read. A more positive example of this instructive style is Bissinger's description of Albert Pujols. No bonus baby, Pujols came up by way of a junior college in Missouri, hardly noticed by scouts. "There was nothing quite like Pujols. Players like that don't come along once in a lifetime; they never come along. As good as his swing is, Pujols still treats it as a work to be meticulously refined, studied, examined, pulled apart, mercilessly critiqued. He adjusts it continually, bearing in mind the human tendency toward entropy and the fact that no two pitchers are more perfectly alike than any two snowflakes or two fingerprints are alike." To realize that no two ballplayers, no two situations, no two pitches, no two swings are more perfectly alike than any two snowflakes or two fingerprints are alike—that is, to understand what it means to be human—is to understand the intrinsic art and power that is baseball and, more importantly, the art and power of relationships—both inter-and intrapersonal. Bissinger, in artful and powerful fashion, makes this crystal clear for anyone who takes the time to look.

All the strategy in the world—and there is a good bit of strategy analysis in the book, for example the hit-and-run is dissected for the best part of a long chapter, the advantage and disadvantage of playing the infield in with runners on the corners and no outs is explained in intimate detail, and much more—but strategy is not the point of the story. It is the heartbreak and joy that is the focus. Not on a grand-and-more-important-than-life-itself scale one expects from (ugh, I hate this phrase in this context but it can't be avoided) sports books. It is about the heartbreak of watching a first pitch fastball catch the low outside corner and not offering at it, knowing that was the last decent pitch you'd see that at-bat. And it is the joy of the next pitch, as Bissinger writes: "Robinson won't get a better pitch than that. He doesn't. The next pitch is a sinker away. Its location is devilish, but Robinson swings and slaps it down the left field line for a double. Renteria scores to close the gap to 2-1." It is about the Heartbreak and the Joy that baseball gives, and takes, which is why I read slowly and made it last as long as possible. Call me crazy.

Above all, baseball is about the little things. Not so much the game of physical inches the talking heads and analysts hype but the passion and humanity inside all of us. It is about the numbing defeat, like letting that first pitch go by when it might have been your only chance at success. It is about the small victories, like hitting a devilish pitch down the line for a two-bagger (though as Bissinger makes clear, Robinson is no hero. After missing a chance to move a runner into scoring position in a previous at-bat, and dogging a lazy Texas leaguer from an out into a run-scoring double for the opposition the previous half-inning, "one double does not demolish a doghouse."). Does this defeat, or this victory, really matter? Of course. The balance of the game, of a career, is built on these foundations. Little things matter. Confidence matters. Overconfidence matters. Being in the doghouse doesn't just happen. Getting out of it doesn't either. These small things, physical, psychological and emotional, shape personalities and relationships and futures.

Yes, baseball is about money and billionaire owners playing Monopoly with real buildings and millionaire players not signing autographs for kids and a handful of steroid abusers reflecting poorly on the game and everyone in it and a lot of other headline stuff. But baseball is really about the little things and the relationships the players have with themselves. Each slider in, followed by a fastball away; and the next at bat, when a fastball away doesn't follow a slider in. What's coming next? How do I adjust? Each step an outfielder takes toward the line as the count goes deeper because the batter's tendency is to go the other way with two strikes. And the batter knowing they know that and are shading him to hit that way so he looks middle in for something to pull. Each juke by the runner at first—everyone knows he's not stealing, not in this situation, but is he tipping off a hit and run play? Or just juking to force us into a mental error? Each pitch out to keep the sonuvabitch close. But that pushes the count further in the hitter's favor and runs up a sore-armed starter's pitch count and there's no lefty in the pen.

The framework for the book is, as I've said, the three game series. The quintessential form of the game is three games against the same opponent over three days. This 3 act play is preceded and followed by other such events against other opponents—53 times, a total of 162 games, over 180 days from early April to early October. It is a grind, to say the least. A passion play set in 20 cities or more, coast to coast, which isn't over until, as Yogi Berra so famously out it, it’s over. Teams, and players, get to know each other, well. Tendencies matter. Passion matters. A three game series when every pitch, every play, every effort, every error—physical and mental—is vital to victory. To study the game in this form is to know the game. Any NASCAR fan can be taught to read, and they can read the standings, in April, July, and September. But to know the game, one must watch the game, pitch by pitch, series by series, city by city, and player by player. One must think about the game and also think ahead of the game—which pitch is coming next and why? Does the situation call for a steal? Does the outfield play straightaway with the infield leaning to pull? This book is the primer for this education. By thinking with the game, the beauty of the game becomes clear, sublime, intoxicating. Pretty heady stuff, huh?

Bissinger calls baseball a "complex and layered" game. It is indeed. What he means is that it is an intellectual game but he doesn't want to insult the vast majority of American readers. It is indeed. This book reflects that complexity, those layers, and teaches us a lot about human nature in the process. What more could you want?

What makes this book such a good read for fan, near fan and non-fan alike is that this book—yes, about baseball—is really more about writing. I'll not go so far as to say it is high literature but it does set a stage, build a context, and describes drama, tragedy, pathos and more in riveting style. And, as I more than hinted at earlier, it is a read that can instruct, and be appreciated by, anyone. The form of the writing is in baseball rhythm, not its jargon, so it is artful without being cryptic to the neophyte. After Steve Kline, wildman lefty reliever (true baseball aficionados recognize those adjectives as wholly redundant, of course) gives up yet another ringing double to Kenny Lofton in a tense late inning setting, Bissinger describes the post-game thoughts of the pitcher this way: "Kline will think about it, continued nightmares of being told to kiss the bride and lifting up the veil and seeing it's frigging Lofton, Lofton at the register when he's in the checkout line searching for his bonus card, Lofton in the car next to him when he stops at a red light, Lofton asking him whether he prefers a window seat or an aisle, Lofton, Lofton, Lofton, smiling in such a way that it does resemble a hit in the gap."

We've all been there, which is what makes this book an essential read for everyone.



Only 79 days until the season opener!

Now Why Is It That Americans Dislike the French?

There is a presidential election in France next spring. Guess what issue they are now discussing in that campaign? Not gay marriage......not abortion......not even intelligent design. No, the French are talking about the problem of homelessness. That's right, homelessness. Isn't that a novel idea? Those snooty French are actually using a political campaign to examine a serious social issue. How dare they! It's about time we change the name back to "freedom fries."

And listen to some of the radical ideas emanating from Paris. Did you know that the French Constitution guarantees a right to housing? One French official even suggested this week that housing should be a guaranteed right, just like "health care and education." Health care a guaranteed right, and housing? Why that's socialism! If we guaranteed housing to everyone in the good old U.S.A., what would happen? Everyone might have......ah......ah......a place to live. Hell no, we can't do that. We didn't beat the Nazi's and win the Cold War so Americans could have housing and health care. We fought those battles so Americans could have, ah......ah......freedoms. Yes, so I could have the freedom to live in my house and not have the government take it away and give it to a homeless person. And besides, if everyone had a guaranteed place to live and cheap health care, the terrorists will win.

A homeless advocacy group set up tents in Paris and asked Parisians to spend a night away from their houses and apartments just to see what it was like to live on the streets--many have done it. And both presidential candidates, Segolene Royal (Socialist-left), and Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP-conservative), have promised to tackle the issue of housing and homelessness. Funny thing, the number of homeless people in all of France is probably about the same as the number in Los Angeles alone. But of course, it's not a problem in this country is it?

Did this issue even come up in the 2004 American election--or any campaign before that? Is there any homelessness legislation on the floor of Congress now? And the French didn't think the Iraq War was a good idea either, did they? It's no wonder Americans despise the French......they are simply right about too many things.

Segolene Royal







Nicolas Sarkozy

Trouble in Africa

This one isn't going away soon my friends, so let's get ourselves educated. Somalia has become terribly messy and I fear it will soon will be part of the open-ended War on Terror. No, there won't be American troops sent to Somalia--but a kind of proxy war is distinctly possible.

There has been instability for some time in Somalia (and that is an understatement). But a bad situation became much worse when neighboring Ethiopia invaded several weeks ago to prop-up a transitional government/faction and throw out the Islamic group which had been in power since this past summer.

Ethiopia has promised to withdraw all of its forces, but commentators in Somalia see serious trouble ahead. Will this become a new battleground in the War on Terror? Will Ethiopia sell itself to Washington as a friend in Africa and ask for help. With Al-Qaeda now offering its support for the retreating Islamic side, a long and violent insurgency is a distinct possibility.

And please don't underestimate the stupidity of the Bush administration on this one. If Ethiopia spins this regional conflict as defending freedom-loving Christians against Islamic terrorists--the White House might believe they have to at least offer something. And that initial, small offer of support often leads to more. This might also be a way for the American military to justify some kind of intervention into Africa.

I hope that Books and Bait readers will school themselves on this serious global situation from the start. The American Military-Industrial Complex often gets its way on these obscure foreign policy issues because the public is too busy to care. But I know that our readers won't let that happen. Please keep me posted and I will continue with updates.


Definition: Thanks to The Urban Dictionary for yet another valuable and timely new word for our collective vocabularies. Enterdrainment was the Urban Word of the Day on Sunday:

Any passive form of entertainment that is so incredibly mind-numbing that it sucks the intelligence from the listener or viewer; ultimately over time, reducing (or limiting) them to a simplistic proto-human mental state, incapable of cognition or rational thought. Sports, celebrity gossip, country music, talk radio, call-in show, soap operas, and reality-TV are considered by many to be Enterdrainment.

And She Wore Purple

When you are somewhat of a cynic like I am (probably just more of an old coot actually), it's often hard to find that more hopeful and idealistic side. But it still surfaces once in a while and I am always happy to let it see the light of day.

Nothing better to bring out my rosy and optimistic nature than the Democrats taking control of Congress! But more importantly, seeing that Nancy Pelosi wore purple--the color associated with women's rights and the women's movement.....well that made me downright misty-eyed. A women is Speaker of the House. She replaced an old fat white guy, who followed 137 other old fat white guys in that position. I will say it again, a women is Speaker of the House.

I still seethe when I see this picture--and I have kept it around just so I don't forget what kind of country we live in under the Bush regime. If you are not aware, these extremely white old men are all watching Bush sign a partial-birth abortion ban. You might be able to see Rick Santorum smiling, and Dennis Hastert with a smirk on his face. I think you all get the irony of the picture. Well, maybe these days are coming to a close. I sure hope so.

A women is Speaker of the House. I am proud of Speaker Pelosi and proud of the Democrats. But I must mention some other names here. Just a few of the women of the past who made this possible--a few names we should never forget. I salute Jane Addams, Crystal Eastman, Ella Baker, Emma Goldman, Florence Kelley, Lillian Wald, Betty Friedan, the Grimke sisters, Fannie Lou Hamer, Lucy Parsons, Margaret Sanger, Rose Schneiderman, and Alice Paul. There are many, many more--but maybe this will keep us all thinking about what happened today. A women is Speaker of the House.

By the way, do you think the "leaders" in that picture have heard of any of the women in the above paragraph?

Books, John McCain's Plan, and Friedman Units

I stumbled upon these books/reading statistics earlier this year. Some of the information is frightening! The data is from the website of a publishing company. Go to that link for specific references to each piece of information--everything is well cited. Granted, some of the details are dated--but I think you will get the point. This is why we need a nice "highbrow" book, literature, and political Blog....right?

--One-third of high school graduates never read another book the rest of their lives
--58% of the U.S. adult population never reads another book after high school (includes those who didn't graduate)
--42% of college graduates never read another book (can this really be true?)
--80% of U.S. families did not buy or read a book during the past year
--70% of all U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the past five years
--Most readers do not get past page 18 in a book they have purchased
--at least 20% of adults in the U.S. read at or below a fifth-grade level
--customers 55 years and older account for more than one-third of all books purchased
--each day, Americans spend 4 hours watching TV, 3 hours listening to the radio, and 14 minutes reading


John Edwards
Good work by Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards for referring to the proposed "troop surge" in Iraq as the McCain Plan. Isn't it about time that we Democrats started to employ those George Lakoff "framing" strategies? Edwards used the McCain Plan phrase several times on the Sunday morning talk-show circuit. I would like this silly but dangerous troop surge scheme to be called the McCain-Lieberman Plan--but I am perfectly happy for just McCain and Bush to be saddled with it.

I will post more on the Democratic presidential race very soon. But I would say that the two anointed heavyweights, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, should not overlook John Edwards.

Thomas Friedman
Nice touch by Friedman in the NYT today in his editorial "A Hanging and a Funeral." Friedman compares the ridiculous "troop surge" idea to a married couple who are having problems. He writes, "Then one day, they say to each other, 'Hey, let's have a baby that will bring us together.' It never works. If the underlying union is not there, adding a baby won't help."

This whole "baby" analogy is a little odd, but strangely effective nonetheless. And coming from someone who has been an Iraq War supporter for much of the past few years, it's promising to hear.

If you want to understand Thomas Friedman's political ideas, take a look at the explanation of a new time unit that has been invented by some liberal bloggers--really makes fun of Friedman's penchant to hope for the best in six-months increments. I am hoping he doesn't take the same tact on this troop surge. A pregnancy would be......1.25 Friedman Units, I think.

First Resolution for the New Year

Woke up to these distressing NYT headlines today, "3,000 Deaths in Iraq, Countless Tears at Home" and "Another Grim Milestone for U.S." How dare the liberal media only report the bad news! I expect we will be hearing that from the right-wingers in the next few weeks.

What was the first thing my partner did on this bright January, 2007 morning?--she wrote to her elected representatives about Iraq, urging them to withdraw American troops and not pour any additional resources into this insane and futile quagmire.

A pretty good way to start the new year I believe. There are many things we can do to try and stop this madness in Iraq; but we must at least keep up the pressure on our elected officials. In particular, those vulnerable senators up for re-election in 2008 must be told that we are monitoring their actions on Iraq (that's you Norm Coleman). And the recently elected Democrats need some subtle pressure. Remember, many of our new charges gained only small victories in swing states and districts. They are uneasy and apprehensive about public opinion. Let them know why they were elected and who elected them. We must hold their feet to the fire once in a while. Besides, let them know that public opinion is on our side now.

Some offices are changing in the upcoming party transition--but you should be able to go to the following links and find an address. Let's keep the pressure on these people!

U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives