by Pamela Troy
Meet Shirley Nagel, who hit on a unique way of "getting the message out" about McCain. She decided to deny Halloween treats to children whose parents voted for Obama.
I kid you not. That's what she did. She put out a sign in her yard reading, "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters, or kids of supporters" and stood by it, asking kids at the door if their parents supported Obama, and refusing treats to those who answered in the affirmative.
This, I suppose, will qualify as a "learning experience" for the kids whose parents support Obama, that lesson being that creeps come in all shapes and sizes, even the form of an attractive, well-dressed lady living in a pretty house in a nice neighborhood. What the kids whose parents support McCain have learned about civility and politics from this experience is pretty horrible to contemplate. Fortunately, there was an Obama-supporting neighbor who put up a sign welcoming all kids, including the ones whose families vote for McCain, so hopefully they'll learn more from that guy than from the awful woman next door to him.
At the same time I heard about Ms. Nagel, I found through Sadlyno this blogpost by a "Dr. Helen," an ardent McCain supporter who has roughly the same idea, though in this case it's the people unfortunate enough to wait on her in restaurants who'll get a lesson.
"I've been thinking. If Obama is elected, maybe in lieu of a tip I should leave a note like the following:
HOPE AND CHANGE FOR AMERICA: Spreading the Wealth Around.
In lieu of a tip, $_____ has been donated to the Re-Elect Obama for President Campaign. Thank you for supporting the man and the movement that are bringing America together!"
So not only children, but people scraping by on tips get a nice little first-hand glimpse into the psyche of these McCain "supporters." "Dr. Helen" followed this post up with one saying, awww shucks, she does leave tips anyway, because it's so darned hard to figure out in Tennessee which of the hardworking people waiting on her believe in "redistribution of wealth." But obviously, if she could, she would. "Perhaps in blue cities or where it is clearer that people believe in redistributing wealth, it would be easier," she says.
Too bad Obama supporters can't be forced to sew little embroidered "O's" onto their clothing. That way McCain supporters like Ms. Nagel and Dr. Helen would know which poor people to stiff, which children to reduce to tears, which old people not to offer a seat on the bus...
Pamela Troy
http://paft.livejournal.com/
Submitted by mark karlin - A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Message to the Republican Party: The "Real America" is not a region, religion or a demographic of people – and it is not rallies composed of rowdy, bigoted hooligans.
The "Real America" is a gift given to us in the form of the Constitution and a system of government that guarantees rule by the consent of the governed – and that includes all citizens who are eligible to vote – and a nation that abides by the rule of law.
A BuzzFlash reader recently sent us this quotation from Robert F. Kennedy:
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
Forty years after his assassination – during a decade when the guns of intolerance attempted to shoot down the "Real America" – Robert F. Kennedy could not have more aptly described and pinpointed the grotesque character of the Republican Party since the advent of Richard M. Nixon.
As we know, the smug, hateful, religious extremist, and morally reprehensible heart of the GOP has beat all the stronger over the last 8 years. It has reached a new level of a Frankenstein parody of the "Real America" – our Constitution and our system of checks and balances – during the McCain campaign.
The genius of the American Revolution was that it gave birth to a nation that allowed for a country that was Constitutionally bound to refresh its leadership on an ongoing basis, subject to the choice of its citizens – and put into place a balanced system of checks and balances to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful or "monarchal" in nature.
The "Real America" is written into our founding documents, not into a self-anointed mob of self-righteous and ethically-challenged members of one political party.
We detest the exclusionary, greedy arc of the Republican Party since Nixon, but we don’t deny the right of the haters and bullies to share this nation with those who understand our Constitutional roots. We are all part of one national community with the right to disagree about ideas
We are, after all, a nation of inclusion, not exclusion. The "Real America" is a concept shared, an adopted identity (for we are all – except Native Americans – descendants of immigrants to this land) that champions liberty, religious freedom, economic opportunity on a level playing field, and complete freedom without regard to ethnic, gender or social background.
In 2008, we have a choice between the faux "Real Americans" who promote intolerance with incendiary rhetoric and a wink and a nod – and the "Real America," a leader who bases his principles on the Constitution and the rule of law.
The choice should not be a hard one to make if you believe in the "Real America" of the promise of this great experiment in democracy.
BuzzFlash proudly endorses Barack Obama for President of the United States.
By David Sirota, AlterNet
The final stretch of the Presidential race has become an ideological proxy war between Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt.
After two years and a quarter-billion dollars worth of ads, the pulverizing election has become a steel-cage match pitting rivals against each other -- and not Immigrants versus Natives, Americans versus Foreigners or Whites versus Blacks.
No, John McCain and Barack Obama have made the race's final weeks an ideological proxy war between two presidential icons who still loom larger than them: Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt.
McCain promises to "follow in [Reagan's] tradition and in his footsteps" while vilifying Obama as a 1930s-era "socialist" looking to "redistribute wealth." Obama counters by invoking Roosevelt's speeches and depicting the financial meltdown as "the final verdict" on McCain's "failed philosophy" (i.e., Reaganism).
Mind you, neither personifies these predecessors. Obama's moderate record is not FDR's quasi-socialism, and McCain has renounced some of his Reagan-inspired dogma.
Both also ignore inconsistencies. Obama criticizes the "failed philosophy" of Reagan conservatism while infusing some of his own prescriptions with such conservatism. McCain attacks Obama's "socialism" after voting for the bank bailout bill -- the most aggressive stroke of socialism in contemporary American history.
But all that is less important right now than the duo's binary framing. They both effectively say a vote for McCain is a vote to continue Reagan's trickle-down tax cuts and free-market fundamentalism, and a vote for Obama is a vote to resurrect Roosevelt's regulations and redistributions. And because this choice has been made so clear -- because we know what we're voting on -- whoever wins will have a huge mandate to implement the ideology he thematically represented.
That's why conservatives are so worried.
They see the cause and effect: As McCain doubles down on the right's economic catechism, Obama is surging. Even in traditional Gipper territory like Colorado and Virginia, the Rooseveltian Socialist is running ahead of Reagan Reincarnate.
Conservatives' response is a preemptive "nah, nah, can't hear you!" They contend that no matter how big progressives may win on Election Day, this is nonetheless a center-right nation. Indeed, a LexisNexis search shows this poll-tested term -- "center-right nation" -- is lately among the Punditburo's most ubiquitous Orwellian buzzwords. From a Newsweek cover story by conservative dittohead Jon Meacham to a Wall Street Journal screed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan to a Politico.com diatribe by former Rudy Giuliani aide John Avlon, the "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.
The proof of this center-right nation? Republicans cite polls showing more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. While that data point certainly measures brand name, those same surveys undermine the right's larger argument because they show majorities support progressive positions on most economic issues.
Nevertheless, if Obama wins, expect more frantic talk from the fringe about how electing a black man billed as an Islamic Karl Marx obviously means our country is more conservative than ever. We'll also be treated to hysterical assertions like those from former Bush aide Peter Wehner, who this week told the Washington Post that "it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism."
But with the Bush era finely tuning America's BS detector, repetition and revisionism can no longer cloak reality.
"As the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative," writes The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, adding that a McCain loss in such an ideologically polarized contest means "Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected."
That would be the very mandate for "direct, vigorous action" Roosevelt described in his 1933 inaugural address. Should a President Obama try to capitalize on it, he will have nothing to fear but fear itself.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
Journalist Jane Mayer on how right-wing Washington insiders became "smitten" with Sarah Palin, and crowned her their VP.
Amy Goodman: No matter who wins the White House November 4th, a group of prominent conservatives are planning to meet the next day in Virginia to discuss the way forward for the movement. And regardless of the outcome, Governor Sarah Palin will be high on the agenda. The New York Times reports if John McCain loses the election, Palin could emerge as a standard bearer for the conservative movement and a potential presidential candidate in 2012, albeit one who will need to address her considerable political damage.
Most Americans had never heard of Sarah Palin when McCain first announced her as his running mate back in August. Her national debut came at the Republican Party's convention in St. Paul, where she sought to cast herself as an antidote to the elitist culture inside the Beltway.
Gov. Sarah Palin: I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment, and I've learned quickly these last few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
AG: Governor Palin's sudden rise to prominence, however, owes more to members of the Washington elite than her rhetoric suggests. That's according to an article in The New Yorker magazine by investigative reporter Jane Mayer. It's called "The Insiders: How John McCain Came to Pick Sarah Palin." Jane Mayer now joins us in Washington, D.C.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jane.
Jane Mayer: Hi, thanks. Good to be with you.
AG: It's good to have you with us. Why don't you tell us the story of the cruises to Alaska?
JM: The cruises. Well, Juneau, Alaska turns out to be a major stop for cruise ships that come through Alaska, and there are political cruises, in particular, that are run by the conservative political magazines that stop there. And so, when Sarah Palin was elected governor, she learned that a number of those Washington insider elite members of the media would be trooping through Juneau. And despite the rhetoric that she's got that is about, you know, sort of deriding them and saying she doesn't, you know, seek their approval, in fact, she invited most of them to lunch and to other receptions that she threw. She even brought some up on a helicopter ride to go see a couple sites in Alaska.
So, she was courting some of those Washington insiders. In particular, they were the pundits that work for the Weekly Standard magazine, which is Rupert Murdoch's conservative political magazine, and the National Review, the old conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley. So she made a great impression on some of these pundits when they came through. They enjoyed their lunches and receptions and went back and wrote fabulous stories about her, and this was one of the things that really got the ball rolling for her.
JM: Well, you know, Jane, if you could actually tell us the story -- for example, first, you had the two magazines, the Weekly Standard had one cruise, and the National Review, Buckley's publication, had the other. Bill Kristol and his crew came into town for the first lunch. Just describe it for us and their impressions, as you understood them from your sources.
JM: Well, I mean, I interviewed many of them. They described her as completely charming. And an unusual dish was served, an Alaska dish, halibut cheeks, in the governor's mansion. And she was -- her little girl Piper popped in and asked about dessert. And Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, who is a regular on a show called "The Beltway Boys" and writes for the Weekly Standard, and Michael Gerson, who was a former speech -- top speech writer for President Bush and writes a column in the Washington Post, were all there with various family members of theirs. And they were smitten by her, especially Bill Kristol, who has really been beating the drums for Sarah Palin, pretty much ever since.
And then, the second group came in several weeks later. They were the National Review crowd, and it was a much bigger group. One of the things that interested me about that group was, among the dignitaries was Dick Morris, who is a political consultant and a very sort of cynical, savvy player in politics, the ultimate, really, Washington insider, in a way. All the kinds of people that Sarah Palin has said that she's such an outsider to, well, they were all at a reception for her there. And, in fact, Dick Morris sort of pulled her aside for a private conversation, which she then revealed later to the group, in which he said, "If you want to be successful politically, you've got to continue to hold onto your image as an outsider. Play up that outsider thing." And obviously, she has. But it's just so interesting to hear that really it's a calculated strategy. It's not just because she is an outsider; it's a ploy, to some extent.
AG: Dick Morris, of course, the disgraced aide to President Clinton, though usually with the Republicans.
JM: Yeah, he was a disgraced aide. He was disgraced when he was caught with a prostitute. And he has since been advising mostly Republicans and very much down on -- he was writing one nasty column after another about the Clintons throughout the primary season. So, he saw in Palin -- and he's written about this -- a female who could in a way replace Hillary Clinton as the most powerful woman in politics. And so, he's been very much promoting Palin in that way.
AG: So, you have the cruises to Alaska, National Review and the Weekly Standard. How did that parlay into, well, Sarah Palin being chosen on the ticket? And if you could bring Adam Brickley into this.
JM: Sure. Well, alright, so the cruises come through in the summer of 2007. Fred Barnes goes right back to Washington and writes a glowing column about Palin and what a fabulous politician she is and a promising, rising star in the Republican Party.
Soon after, there's this young man named Adam Brickley, who is just out of college, and he is a staunch conservative, he's looking for somebody who could add some pep to the Republican ticket, and he particularly is worried about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as, you know, a possible combination. So, anyway, he's looking for a female. And he starts with Wikipedia, and he just looks for all the females in the Republican Party. And he told -- I interviewed him -- he says at some point, you know, he couldn't find anybody good, and then he thinks, oh, what about that lady that just got elected in Alaska? So he looks up things about Sarah Palin and sees that she's considered kind of this rising star.
And so, he starts a blog that's called Sarah Palin for Vice President Blog. And it starts pushing Palin and gets picked up by many other conservative blogs and then finally works its way into kind of conservative radio, Rush Limbaugh, and the American Spectator, conservative magazines. So there's this sort of growing groundswell.
Now, the thing that interested me about Brickley is, while he is a kind of authentic, one-of-a-kind voice, I think, he is also the product of -- very much of Washington, in a way. He's not from Washington; he's from Colorado, but he's been trained by a number of conservative organizations in Washington.
AG: Colorado Springs.
JM: Yeah, he's from Colorado Springs. And he's a home-schooled evangelical Christian, one that is so far into sort of the kind of conservative Christianity, his family describes themselves as Messianic Jews, meaning that they believe to be like Christ they need to be Jews, because Christ was a Jew. It's very unusual, where they're coming from.
But at the same time, he also is somebody who's gone to the Leadership Institute, which is an organization that Morton Blackwell, an evangelical Christian, founded a couple decades ago to train sort of cadres of the right wing. And so, Adam Brickley has gone through this training. He's also received scholarships from various right-wing organizations. He currently is living in a dormitory that's part of the Heritage Foundation here in Washington, which is another big right-wing think tank. You know, he's been trained in how to kind of help the conservative movement and how to become part of it. So, he's pushing Palin, and his blog gets a lot of traffic. And so, there's kind of this nexus of these forces coming together, both of which are really Washington forces that are pushing Palin.
AG: I thought it was very interesting how, as you said, he saw Hillary's popularity, so he went to Wikipedia, searched election sites for Republican women, not that he supported affirmative action, but he saw the political writing on the wall. And he "puzzled over every Republican female politician I knew," he said. "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison," you write, "of Texas, 'waffled on social issues'; Senator Olympia Snowe, of Maine, was too moderate. He was running out of options, he recalled, when he said to himself, 'What about that lady [who] just [got] elected in Alaska?' Online research revealed that she had a strong grassroots following." [He] said, "I hate to use the words 'cult of personality,' but she reminded me of Obama," so set up palinforvp.blogspot.com.
JM: That's right, yeah. And, I mean, and it is interesting, there was not that much competition, if you're looking through the Republican Party for female figures from the far right. I mean, Palin, you know, she barely had any experience at all, and even in statewide office at this point. She'd just been governor for a couple months. But there weren't that many people to pick from. So her resume, her biography, is what really caught these guys' eyes.
And, you know, they're sort of going down a checklist. They're looking far-right politics, female, and then attractive. And one of the things that all of the Republican political pundits who came through the governor's mansion were -- it was funny to interview them. They were just smitten by her. They described her wearing high heels and saying, "Hi, I'm Sarah," and introducing herself charmingly. And they talked, almost to a man, how gorgeous she was. They called her a "honey." Bill Kristol called her "my heartthrob." I mean, they sounded like guys with schoolboy crushes, practically.
AG: So, Jane Mayer, let's move now to the other track, and that was McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. How did they merge? What was McCain doing? In the end, as you point out, he met her all of three hours. How did it happen?
JM: Well, this is a --
AG: McCain, who wanted Lieberman, chooses Palin.
JM: It's really kind of a wild story, as, you know, American history goes, because it almost didn't happen. I mean, and it was almost an accident that it did happen. Basically, McCain and his sidekick, Lindsey Graham, who he's very close with from the Senate, were both leaning heavily towards another senator, Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, former Democrat. And they really had a great comfort level with Lieberman and very much wished they could pick him for vice president. But all of the sort of political operatives were saying, "You can't do it. It's going to hurt you with the base of the Republican Party." Lieberman was too liberal. He's pro-choice on abortion. He has a hawkish foreign policy, but on domestic policy, he's like a Democrat still, in many ways. And so, basically, the operatives around McCain, in the week before he picked, told him he couldn't have Lieberman, at which -- which one of McCain's friends described to me as putting him in a foul humor. He was really upset and angry.
And so, they went through the list of what was available, and there were so many things wrong with each of the possible picks that they decided to push Palin on McCain. And he hadn't really spent any time with her. He had talked to her for something like 15 minutes at a reception with a lot of other people. And so, they engineered then a private conversation for him. He spent somewhere under three hours in total face-to-face with her before he picked her. And, you know, it was then a fait accompli. So that's how it happened.
AG: The issue of choosing Romney, as one old friend of his said, he just couldn't stand Romney, is that right?
JM: Well, you know, that is what one person said. Apparently, a lot of personal animosity lingers because of, you know, the competition during the primary season. And so, that was out for personal reasons. I quote somebody named David Keene, who is the head of the American Conservative Union, who was pushing Romney and said that he told Romney, "Don't wait by your phone. He doesn't like you," meaning McCain. And with McCain, he says, all politics is personal. So there wasn't any good chemistry there.
AG: And this whole issue of Sarah Palin going rogue right now, setting herself up for 2012?
JM: Well, it's really interesting, isn't it? She seems to be breaking out from the handlers, the McCain handlers, blaming them in some ways for things like the clothing, the $150,000 spent on her outfits, which obviously damaged her image, you know, such a contrast, again, between someone portraying herself as a Washington outsider and not an elitist and then spending just that kind of money on, you know, the most expensive clothes in the country. It really hurt her image. So she's saying that this was not her idea, and it was pushed on her by the McCain campaign. And she's separating herself out. I think you get the feeling that they're turning on each other, maybe so that she can position herself for the next time and try to limit the damage from this run.
AG: Jane Mayer, I want to thank you for being with us.
JM: Of course, I mean, I've got to say one last thing, though.
AG: We've got five seconds.
JM: OK. They could still be elected, so don't count her out yet.
AG: Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine, thanks so much for joining us.
Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!
By Joe Conason - Salon.com
The U.S. economy has prospered under Democratic policies, and the candidate knows it. But the real battle begins once Obama takes the White House.
Nov. 1, 2008 As Barack Obama delivers his closing argument, stumping across the battleground states, he seems increasingly confident in contrasting the success of Democratic policy with the failure of Republican ideology. During his Florida appearance with former President Bill Clinton as well as in other recent speeches, he has pointed to the bankruptcy of the conservative economic theories that he promises to discard. And he is utterly unfazed by the McCain camp's shrill cries of "socialism," perhaps because he knows the old red-baiting rhetoric has lost much of its power to bamboozle.
If Obama wins this election by a substantial margin -- the bigger the better -- then perhaps his presidency will mark the advent of a new progressive era in America. But the ideologues of the right won't simply disappear because their dogma is discredited. They will tell us, as McCain has repeatedly warned in his speeches, that "spreading the money around" is a bad idea that has been tried, as he put it, by the "far-left liberals." They will whine and moan about "tax and spend" and offer predictions of doom at every percentage increase in marginal rates on the very rich.
Unless Americans understand how the economy has worked -- and how this country was built in the past century -- it is entirely possible that those false prophets will once again block changes that the nation has needed for decades. That understanding should include a review of some very recent history, too.
When Bill Clinton and Al Gore entered the White House with a program for economic, social and environmental renewal, after the era of stagnation under Reagan and Bush, their plans were swiftly thwarted. A pitched battle over taxes and healthcare led to the historic Republican victory in the 1994 congressional midterm election. Clinton certainly was responsible for some of those failures -- and he eventually accomplished much nonetheless -- but universal healthcare, worldwide controls of carbon emissions, and many other profoundly important reforms were killed.
Is Obama destined to relive those experiences when he asks Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and pass a huge economic stimulus bill? Perhaps not, but those are precisely the issues that led toward Clinton's confrontation with the Republicans and his party's historic defeat two years later. The Republicans refused to support his tax package, even though he cut spending to satisfy conservatives, and then persuaded gullible middle-class voters that he had inflicted the "largest tax increase in history" on them, which was untrue. ("We are buying a one-way ticket to a recession," whined Phil Gramm, the Republican senator from Texas who later became a top economic advisor to McCain -- and whose legislative gutting of financial regulation created the conditions that led to the current recession.)
Will anyone besides the pundits remember what happened then and why it is still relevant now? Not unless Obama himself educates the public -- as he alone now seems able to do. The country is undergoing a teachable moment that is certain to last for many painful months -- and if the new president doesn't seize that opportunity, then his adversaries surely will.
What Obama needs to explain, over and over again, is that Democratic economic programs have succeeded in promoting growth precisely because they distribute national wealth more widely than the Republican tradition of trickle-down. The numbers have told the story for decades -- and the statistics detailing the Clinton administration's success and the Bush administration's failure have only reinforced the narrative.
Consider the cumulative performance of the stock market. Until this year, the best data available showed that on average, equities increased in value by more than 12 percent during Democratic administrations, and by around 8 percent when Republicans were in power. The largest gains in the past 80 years occurred under FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton -- and when the awful declines of the past few months are factored in, the Democratic record will look even better.
Of course, stock prices alone provide an imperfect measure of national progress, especially from a liberal perspective. So Obama should point to similar statistics proving the superiority of the Democratic record on gross domestic product, job creation, unemployment, poverty, budget discipline, disposable income and inflation. His purpose should not be to score partisan points but to prepare the public for the struggle over spending and taxes that will mark his first two years.
For the moment, scaring voters is no longer so easy. The Republican administration is nationalizing financial institutions and Republican economists are demanding big federal spending initiatives. But if Obama wants to avoid the defeats of Clinton's first two years, he must consistently remind Americans what has succeeded and who has failed -- and why.
by Mary Shaw - The Smirking Chimp
This is 2008. The 21st Century. The Age of Aquarius. Harmony and understanding. Racial segregation went out the window more than four decades ago. Mixed-race couples are seen everywhere, along with their strikingly beautiful offspring. Same-sex marriage is now permitted in some states. It actually seems on some level as though some social progress has been made.
But then you pick up a newspaper, and the truth hits you in the face like duckshot from Dick Cheney's gun.
Hate and intolerance are alive and thriving, and in fact seem especially pronounced during this high-stakes election campaign season.
We've become accustomed to hearing the hateful outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies. When Barack Obama's name is mentioned, a member of the crowd screams "Kill him!", or "Bomb Obama!". Then there's the Monkey Man and his "Little Hussein". And these things all happened here in Pennsylvania alone -- north of the Mason-Dixon Line!
But a black presidential candidate with a strange name isn't the only thing that has the right-wing extremists in a tizzy. There is also California's Proposition 8 which, if passed, would ban same-sex marriage in that state. In other words, it would write discrimination into California's Constitution. In other words, "all men are created equal" -- except for the gays and the lesbians.
And if they constitutionally take rights away from gays and lesbians today, what group is next?
But I digress, so let's get back to the subject of homophobia.
It's been 10 years since the brutal murder of gay student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, but society has apparently not grown any more enlightened since then. In fact, according to the FBI, while hate crime incidents in general decreased by 1 percent in 2007 from the previous year, hate crimes linked to prejudice based on sexual orientation had actually increased by about 6 percent!
I believe that hate and intolerance are primarily fueled by ignorance and fear. Therefore, only by addressing the underlying myths and fears that lead to irrational hate and distrust can we hope to progress as a society.
But, sadly, there is no time for all that between now and November 4th. Besides, some people just will not listen, and will not learn.
About author
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated. E-mail:
mary@maryshawonline.com
** Save Gas **
** READ A BOOK **
Search by Book Title/Author /Keyword
USA Today NEWS
USA Today SPORTS
USA Today WEATHER
The Other Big Mac, Ipods & More!
USA Today MONEY
USA Today LIFE
USA Today TRAVEL
"FORE...five...six...seven...."
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment