So gracefully written, so chilling

Garrison Keillor | Embracing the Subtle Upside of Terror

Embracing the Subtle Upside of Terror
By Garrison Keillor
The Chicago Tribune

Wednesday 25 October 2006

We are engaged in a struggle between freedom and the forces of terror, my little macacas, and mostly I side with freedom, such as the freedom to look at big shots and stick out your tongue and blow, but of course terror has its place too. The dude strolling down our street at night does not break into our house to see what's available because he is terrified that if he's nabbed, his girlfriend Janine will run off to Philly with her ex-boyfriend Eddie who's been hanging around. She's the best thing in Benny's life right now. So he walks on by and leaves our stereo be.

The terror of everlasting hellfire kept me away from dances until I was 12 years old and away from smoking cigarettes until I was 15. So that's good. Dancing was briefly thrilling, and then I caught sight of myself in a mirror and I haven't gone to a dance since. Fear of ridicule is powerful too.

A lack of terror may encourage crooks to operate brazenly, knock over the candy stand, trip the nuns, hurl garbage over the balcony, and that's why you have cops, and also to keep the college kids from getting sick in our shrubbery.

But now the federal government is extending the frontiers of terror with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, legalizing torture and suspending habeas corpus and constructing a loose web of law by which you and I could be hung by our ankles in a meat locker for as long as somebody deems necessary. "Any person is punishable ..." the law states, "who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States" and when it comes to deciding what "knowingly and intentionally" might mean or who is the enemy, that's for a military commission to decide in secret, with or without you present. No 5th Amendment, hearsay evidence admissible, no judicial review.

People came to America to escape this sort of justice. The midnight knock on the door, incarceration at the whim of men in shiny boots, confessions obtained with a section of hose, secret trial by star chamber. One is reminded of Germany, 1933, when the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act to give the chancellor the power of summary arrest and imprisonment, a necessary tool for the defense of the homeland against traitors, Jew-lovers, terrorists.

Not that this is a bad thing. Who am I to say? Maybe we've been too lenient with enemies of the state. A period of stark repression might be a rich and rewarding experience for all of us. But when the Current Occupant signed the act last week, the difference between freedom and terror did suddenly shrink somewhat. It makes you wonder: What if Vice President Dick Cheney does not wish to give up power two years from now? Maybe he has other priorities. If an enemy of the United States - a Democrat, for example - appeared to be on the verge of election, perhaps Mr. Cheney, for the good of the country, would be forced to take the threat seriously and head for an undisclosed location and invoke his war powers and shovel a few thousand traitors into camps and call up his friends at Diebold and program the election results that are best for the country, or call the whole thing off.

OK by me if it's OK by you. I don't imagine that coffee sales will be affected or that Paris Hilton will be, like, "Whoa, this is so not cool," and, like, text-message her buds to join her on a hunger strike. The greeters at Wal-Mart will still smile and the football season will go on. They might flash a bulletin at halftime, "Terror Threat Forces Postponement of Election," and most people would be OK with that. If Mr. Cheney thinks it necessary to suspend the Constitution for a while, surely he has his reasons. The man inspires trust.

They won't have to torture me to get a good confession. I am a professional writer of fiction, my little monkeys, and if they turn the bright lights on yours truly, beans will spill by the bushel, names will be named, and dates, and stories will be told one after the other. Everybody who ever done me wrong, I am going to implicate them up to their dewlaps. A trial with hearsay evidence allowed and no cross-examination is tailor-made for a novelist. Throw me into that briar patch, Br'er Bush.

--------

Garrison Keillor is an author and host of "A Prairie Home Companion."

Prop 89 Shenanigans

My personal artist in residence and true love Steve has chipped in his considerable talents to spread the word about Prop 89:

It's time for the October surprise

Oh-oh. Republicans are losing. And with the real possibility of indictments if Democrats regain control of Congress, it's time to reach into the bag of dirty tricks.

Indeed, Karl Rove has already promised an October surprise. What will it be?

A Democratic sex scandal?
Another terrorist act?
Another phony terrorist act foiled?
Free gasoline for all?
A palace coup?
A Swift-boating of Nancy Pelosi?
Hey, how about this? Let's attack Iran! Nobody wants to change leadership in the middle of a nice new war.

Or maybe it will actually be a November surprise, when voters go to the polls in Democratic precincts of swing states controlled by Republicans and find only one or two voting booths where there were traditionally a dozen.

Oh, wait. That wouldn't exactly be a surprise, since it happened in 2002 and 2004.

This just in: "terrorists" will attack an oil refinery in New Jersey.

The Iraqis want us out

Nicholas Kristof: Listen to the Iraqis

Synopsis: Iraqis, by 71%, want us to set a timetable to withdraw within a year.

Belief that the U.S. will establish permanent bases in Iraq is fueling support for the insurgents by 61% of Iraqis; 78% believe the U.S. presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

At this point, Bush's best hope for an October surprise would be to announce that we are pulling out within a year and that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. This would dramatically reduce support for the insurgency.

We might even see an immediate, dramatic stop to the spiraling rise of violence in the country. Maybe even in time to affect the election results.

Thanks to Tennessee Guerilla Women for the link to Nicholas Kristof.

Hey, what's wrong with getting rid of habeas corpus?

It's an outdated idea. The Magna Carta is so 13th century.

Besides, don't the terrorists hate us for our freedoms? Now they won't hate us so much. Hey, we could completely eliminate the terrorist threat. Let's start with that pesky Bill of Rights. And why bother with voting? Nobody believes it has any effect anyway, now that big-money controls political campaigns and Republicans control the voting process.

But maybe the terrorists haven't noticed these abridgements of our freedom. Everybody, spread the word! Tell your neighbors how our freedoms are being taken away. Be sure to talk to the Palestinian grocer down the street, so he can pass the information on to his terrorist friends.

Eventually, terrorists will be sending money to the United States, to help us spread the lack of freedom to other countries. Think of the boost to our economy!

Bay Area Business Women support Prop 89

Bay Area BusinessWoman Online

The Clean Face of Money: Ballot Initaitive Opens Doors for the Rest of Us
—By Sarah E. Clark

Published: October, 2006

Imagine we have a female governor — perhaps another actor like, say, Geena Davis — and strong female representation in the State Legislature and other elected positions. Sound impossible? Think again. Proposition 89, the Clean Money & Fair Elections Act, could change the face of politics in California.

Sponsored by the California Nurses Association (CNA), Proposition 89 is designed to level the election playing field by radically restricting the ability of corporations, unions, and individuals to contribute to political candidates in California. “The Clean Money initiative takes the level of corruption out of politics. It limits the amount of money that special interests can give to a politician, and it lets them be free to actually do what we elect them to do — care for everyday Californians,” says Rose Ann DeMoro, CNA’s executive director.

CNA scored a stunning success in the special election last year, teaming up with other powerful labor unions — teachers, firefighters and public employees — to oppose Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives. This year, as the primary player sponsoring Prop 89, CNA has lined up the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, and Common Cause as allies. Individual endorsers include U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and State Senator Jackie Speier. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, candidate for governor, has also endorsed the initiative.

Donna Chipps, the executive vice president of the League of Women Voters of California, says, “Proposition 89 is a way to give a lot more people the ability to run as well as re-engage voters in the process, both to vote and run, because there seems to be a lot of voter apathy right now.”

According to Northeast Action, a New England-based organization that has been at the forefront of efforts to achieve Clean Elections in the U.S. since the early 1990s, women are underrepresented in American government due to many factors, including a history of discrimination and disenfranchisement as well as a relative lack of access to money to run political campaigns.

CNA released a study in September showing that big-money donors have spent $1.7 billion in the past five years to influence state elections. After analyzing 2.4 million records on file with the secretary of state, CNA found 52,000 contributions of $5,000 or more had been made to candidates for statewide offices and the Legislature and to ballot-initiative campaigns. The average amount of those large contributions was $33,000.

Clean Elections specifically reduces the influence of big money on elections and enables people of modest means to run for office. In California, Prop 89 supports candidates who reject private fundraising by providing them with a set amount of public funding. The cost is paid by a two-tenths of one percent increase in the state corporate tax rate.

Proposition 89 is patterned on Clean Money initiatives that are now law in Arizona and Maine. In Arizona, voters approved a Clean Money initiative in 1998. In every year since the adoption of Clean Elections, more women have run for the Arizona State Legislature and won. In 2004, women accounted for 40 percent of publicly financed candidates. Arizona’s current governor, elected as a Clean Money candidate, is only the state’s third female governor.

Maine became the first state to pass a Clean Money initiative in 1996. Nurse Practitioner Anne Perry ran for the Maine House of Representatives in 2004 and beat an incumbent for the seat. She says she wouldn’t have run for the seat if it weren’t for the Clean Money system. “I had trouble just asking for $5 donations,” said Perry, referring to the requirement that Clean Money candidates demonstrate viability by gathering a prescribed number of $5 donations. “As a nurse, I’ll take care of people, but heaven forbid I should ask anything from them!” The number of women who opted to run “clean” in Maine rose 29 percent from 2002 to 2004, from 68 to 86.

Currently, 31 percent of the California State Legislature is women. The California Elected Women’s Association for Education and Research predicts that after the November elections, the number of women in the Legislature will drop to 29 or 30 percent.

If Proposition 89 passes, the number of women in the State Legislature may actually increase rather than decrease. And if Proposition 89 passes, Californians may one day see a female governor with the integrity of the presidential character Davis plays on TV. But the real-life version would be elected to the position — with Clean Money.

------------------------------------------------

For more information on Proposition 89, go to http://www.Yeson89.org.