Interesting speech by Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

I accept this award on behalf of all the people behind the camera

whom you never see. And for all those scientists, advocates,

activists, and just plain citizens whose stories we have covered in

reporting on how environmental change affects our daily lives. We

journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's

knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. We

tell their stories.

The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend, Bill

McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of

journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the

environment. His bestseller The End of Nature carried on where

Carson's Silent Spring left off.

Writing in Mother recently, Bill described how the problems we

journalists routinely cover – conventional, manageable programs like

budget shortfalls and pollution – may be about to convert to

chaotic, unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most

unmanageable of all, he writes, could be the accelerating

deterioration of the environment, creating perils with huge momentum

like the greenhouse effect that is causing the melt of the artic to

release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic that even the

Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream could yield

abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that could

radically alter civilizations.

That's one challenge we journalists face – how to tell such a story

without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the people

we most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what

they read and hear.

As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a

readable narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers

and viewers, there is an even harder challenge – to pierce the

ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest

changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no

longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat

of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in

our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in

Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven

true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being

contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology

and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are

always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike,

oblivious to the facts.

Remember Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the

Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever

engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how Watt told the U.S.

Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light

of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he

said, " after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back. "

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was

talking about. But Watt was serious. So were his compatriots

out across the country. They are the people who believe the bible is

literally true – one-third of the American electorate, if a recent

Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good

and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture

index. That's right – the rapture index. Google it and you will find

that the best-selling books in America today are the twelve volumes

of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist

and religious right warrior, LaHaye. These true believers

subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by

a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the

Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the

imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer

Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted

to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied

the rest of its " biblical lands, " legions of the anti-Christ will

attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will

return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their

clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right

hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents

suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the

several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've

reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the

West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you

they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of

biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with

Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with

money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a

warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four

angels 'which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be

released to slay the third part of man.' A war with Islam in the

Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed – an

essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I

Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 – just one point below

the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of

god will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will

be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to

Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist,

Glenn Scherer - 'the road to environmental apocalypse. Read it and

you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe

that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but

actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming

apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe

lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the

U.S. Congress before the recent election – 231 legislators in total –

more since the election – are backed by the religious right. Forty-

five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100

percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian

right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill

Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair

Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona,

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only

Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was

Senator Zell of Georgia, who recently quoted from the

biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: " the days will come,

sayeth the Lord God, that i will send a famine in the land. " he

seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 TIME/CNN poll

found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found

in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-

quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the

country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio

stations or in the motel turn some of the 250 Christian TV stations

and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to

understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies

cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, " to worry about the

environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods,

famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of

the apocalypse foretold in the bible? Why care about global climate

change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why

care about converting from oil to solar when the same god who

performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few

billion barrels of light crude with a word? "

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the lord

will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book,

America's providential history. You'll find there these words: " the

secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the

world as a pie... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a

piece. " However, " [t]he Christian knows that the potential in god is

unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in god's

earth... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated,

Christians know that god has made the earth sufficiently large with

plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people. " No wonder

Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant

hymn, " Onward Christian Soldiers. " He turned out millions of the

foot soldiers on November 2, including many who have made the

apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

I can see in the look on your faces just how had it is for the

journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let

me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this

world without expecting a confident future and getting up every

morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an

optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I

once asked: " What do you think of the market? " " I'm optimistic, " he

answered. " Then why do you look so worried? " And he

answered: " Because I am not sure my optimism is justified. "

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with the Chivian and

the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will

protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to

their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am

not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that – it's just

that I read the news and connect the dots:

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the

environment. This for an administration that wants to rewrite the

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act

protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well

as the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the

government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural

resources.

That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle

tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports

utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.

That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to

keep certain information about environmental problems secret from

the public.

That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting

coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier

with coal companies.

That wants to open the artic wildlife refuge to drilling and

increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest

stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last

great coastal wild land in America.

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental

Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars - $2

million of it from the administration's friends at the American

Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use

pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to

neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to

their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the

families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing,

to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the

administration's friends at the international policy network, which

is supported by Exxon Mobile and others of like mind, have issued a

new report that climate change is " a myth, sea levels are not

rising, " scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are " an

embarrassment. "

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent

appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and

obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered

species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial

review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for

grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to

weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the

computer – pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of ,

age 10; of , 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, nine months. I see the

future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, " Father,

forgive us, for we know now what we do. " And then I am stopped short

by the thought: " That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We

are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their

world. "

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are

greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability

to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to out moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: 'How do you see the world? " And

Gloucester, who is blind, answers: " I see it feelingly.' "

I see it feelingly.

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a

journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news

can be the truth that sets us free – not only to feel but to fight

for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to

despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces

looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need

to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites

called " hocma " – the science of the heart... the capacity to see...

to feel... and then to act... as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

[Guest guest]

Noel, thanks for posting this.

Did you know that he announced on Friday that he is retiring? This is a

great loss to journalism.

Friday December 10, 10:44 AM

Bill Moyers Retiring From TV Journalism

" I was just in the editing room, working on the last piece, " Bill Moyers

says. " I thought: `I've done this so many times, and each one is as

difficult as the last one.' Maybe finally I've broken the habit. "

It hasn't been so much a habit for Moyers as a truth-telling mission during

his three decades as a TV journalist. But come next week, he will sign off

from " Now, " the weekly PBS newsmagazine he began in 2002, as, at age 70, he

retires from television.

" I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our

time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the

Republican National Committee, " says Moyers. " We have an ideological press

that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press

that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant,

independent press whose interest is the American people. "

For that, his absence after the Dec. 17 " Now " will be all the more keenly

felt: Moyers' interest has always been the American people.

A humanist who's at home with subjects ranging from the power of myth to

media consolidation, from drug addiction to modern dance, from religion to

environmental abuse, Moyers has produced hundreds of hours of diverse

programming on issues that others shortchange, sidestep or simply fail to

notice. And through it all, he has looked upon his audience not as targeted

consumers, or as voters split along a Red State-Blue State divide, but as

his fellow citizens.

He's a citizen-journalist with a robust background, this Texas native who,

early on, earned a divinity degree (he's an ordained Baptist minister) then

served as special assistant to President , and for several years was

publisher of the Long Island newspaper Newsday.

In 1971, he came to public television as host of " This Week " and " Bill

Moyers' Journal, " and, next, joined CBS News to do similarly civic-minded

programming.

Then in 1986 he and his wife, Judith son Moyers, became their own

bosses by forming Public Affairs Television, an independent shop that has

not only produced documentaries such as " A Walk Through the 20th Century, "

" Healing and the Mind " and " A Gathering of Men with Bly, " but also

paid for them through its own fund-raising efforts.

" Judith and I will take several months to catch our breath, " says Moyers

during a recent conversation at the soon-to-be-vacated office he rents at

Thirteen/WNET's Manhattan headquarters. " Then I will think about the Last

Act _ capital L, capital A _ of my life. "

He does have one immediate project: a book he will write about his years

with . But he has no TV ventures in mind.

With his days at " Now " ticking down, Moyers voices pride in that series,

which, upon its premiere three years ago, he envisioned as " a flexible

format for ideas and conversation, reportage and debate. " Now reaching 2.4

million viewers weekly with its breaking-news currency and contemplative

pace, " Now " will continue with his worthy co-host, Brancaccio, taking

over. (It airs Fridays at 8:30 p.m. EST; check local listings.)

" It has gained traction, " says Moyers _ if only by default, in an era where

most TV journalism gravitates toward the sensational or trivial. " As the

networks have raced to the bottom, it is very easy to stand out if you just

do good journalism. We've been trying to do good journalism, and it filled a

real void. "

One example of typically good journalism on " Now " not long ago: an in-depth

look at the record of President Bush's nominee for secretary of state,

Condoleeza Rice, who in her current post as national security adviser

" dreadfully misjudged the terrorist threat leading up to 9/11, and then

misled America and the world about the case for invading Iraq, " as Moyers

concluded.

It was the sort of report unlikely to be found on most newscasts, and even

less likely to endear a reporter to the powers-that-be, on whose good graces

the media has grown all too reliant. But Moyers believes that challenging

those in power is a journalist's duty _ and, consequently, his.

" What they're really objecting to is not my ideology, " he says in his

thoughtful, almost pastoral manner. " I'd be doing this if the Democrats were

in power. It's not that I'm a liberal, it really isn't. It's the fact that

I'm doing journalism that isn't determined by the establishment.

" You don't get rewarded in commercial broadcasting for trying to tell the

truth about the institutions of power in this country, " he goes on. " I think

my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists, but

they've chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to

fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for

telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment. "

Through his own devices, Moyers has been the journalist he wanted to be,

while honored for it with more than 30 Emmys and 10 Peabody awards.

" I've just been doing the kind of journalism that ought to be done, IF you

had the opportunity to do it, " he insists. " The fight has been to create

that opportunity and that independence. "

It's been a fight he fought well. But where will tomorrow's Bill Moyers come

from?

" We have got to nurture the spirit of independent journalism in this

country, " he warns in reply, " or we'll not save capitalism from its own

excesses, and we'll not save democracy from its own inertia. "

Connie Bernard

http://www.PandoraPads.com

Organic Cotton Feminine Pads, Tampons, Nursing Pads,

Natural Progesterone Cream, and Children's Supplements.

On-line Discount Voucher: aa242a223

[Guest guest]

> Noel, thanks for posting this.

> Did you know that he announced on Friday that he is retiring? This is a

> great loss to journalism.

Thank you both, Noel and Connie. Had heard Bill Moyers was retiring. Not

surprised his reasons are the continued Administration which likely is

placing or about to place even more restrictions on any media receiving any

federal funds.

Relative to the following article I came across this week it seems Bill

Moyers is not going to let his work and integrity be compromised to the

humiliation, groveling point.

Wanita

The Politics of Victimization

[Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of

domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of

many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross]

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated

before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and

career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is

ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly

non-existent. Listen as Donna and Pelosi and Senator Schumer

take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board

and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more

appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly

quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the

blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused

individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of

voices, crying out, " Why did they beat me? "

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if

they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can

call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are

looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the

dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are

the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical

violence.

As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can't seem

to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep

sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the

beating.

Listen to Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen,

as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once,

admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with

those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question

(soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press

corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who

pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and

do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us

(it won't; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet

him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance

themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and

affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm.

Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and

the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where,

worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of

affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and

everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by

responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in

logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You

also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears

and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its

over faster and hurts less is you don't resist and fight back. Instead, you

walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are

hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've

learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with

56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the

eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the

door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new

life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to

be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must

not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom

up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small

groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free

and we don't know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has

defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you.

You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong.

You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don't let him

dictate the terms or frame the debate (he'll win, not because he's right,

but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign,

cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it

failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side.

But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless,

cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, " loose " ,

irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of

the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.

Even if you do everything right, they'll hit you anyway. Look at the poor

souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour

if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering

from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education.

And they don't even know they are being hit.

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

[Guest guest]

Having been a victim of abuse as a child your e-mail really hit home

with me and the comparisons to this administration is so on target.

I had not read the piece about Bill Moyers retirement and not heard

of Mel Gilles, what a wonderful person to do what she is doing for

victims. When I was a victim I had no place to turn and had to grin

and bare it until I could leave at 17. I wasn't sure I would live

through it though. Unfortunately it has stayed with me all my life

but my story has a very happy ending. I rose above it and have had

a very happy life.- Thanks Connie and Wanita!

-- In , " Wanita Sears "

<wanitawa@b...> wrote:

> > Noel, thanks for posting this.

> > Did you know that he announced on Friday that he is retiring?

This is a

> > great loss to journalism.

>

> Thank you both, Noel and Connie. Had heard Bill Moyers was

retiring. Not

> surprised his reasons are the continued Administration which

likely is

> placing or about to place even more restrictions on any media

receiving any

> federal funds.

>

> Relative to the following article I came across this week it seems

Bill

> Moyers is not going to let his work and integrity be compromised

to the

> humiliation, groveling point.

>

> Wanita

>

> The Politics of Victimization

>

>

> [Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for

victims of

> domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the

reaction of

> many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross]

>

> Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight,

humiliated

> before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his

credibility and

> career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she

is

> ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly

> non-existent. Listen as Donna and Pelosi and Senator

Schumer

> take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the

drawing board

> and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable,

more

> appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them

awkwardly

> quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf

the

> blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated,

confused

> individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the

cacophony of

> voices, crying out, " Why did they beat me? "

>

> And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence

shelter if

> they have heard this before.

>

> They will tell you, every single day.

>

> The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers.

We can

> call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we

are

> looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling

the

> dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize

that we are

> the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq,

physical

> violence.

>

> As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We

can't seem

> to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as

we keep

> sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve

the

> beating.

>

> Listen to Bush say that the will of God excuses his

behavior. Listen,

> as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even

once,

> admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only

work with

> those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one

question

> (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned;

the press

> corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those

who

> pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only

listen and

> do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well

for us

> (it won't; we will never be worthy).

>

> And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try

to meet

> him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot,

distance

> themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the

attention and

> affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch

us squirm.

> Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does

not work and

> the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world

where,

> worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

>

> How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

>

> First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the

state of

> affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself

and

> everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by

> responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or

engaging in

> logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are

right. You

> also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up

your ears

> and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows,

figuring its

> over faster and hurts less is you don't resist and fight back.

Instead, you

> walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them,

who are

> hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what

you've

> learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand

tall, with

> 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right

into the

> eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk

out the

> door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you

start a new

> life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.

>

> We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we

need to

> be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our

core, must

> not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the

bottom

> up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in

small

> groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to

break free

> and we don't know how.

>

> Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the

globe who has

> defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong

with you.

> You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are

strong.

> You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser.

Don't let him

> dictate the terms or frame the debate (he'll win, not because he's

right,

> but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots

campaign,

> cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system

to make it

> failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the

other side.

> But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak,

godless,

> cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive,

amoral, " loose " ,

> irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the

mandate of

> the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people

throughout history.

>

> Even if you do everything right, they'll hit you anyway. Look at

the poor

> souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six

dollars an hour

> if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and

suffering

> from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy

education.

> And they don't even know they are being hit.

>

>

> http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

[Guest guest]

Folks, any further discussion of this MUST include the POLITICS tag in the

subject line.

>Having been a victim of abuse as a child your e-mail really hit home

>with me and the comparisons to this administration is so on target.

>I had not read the piece about Bill Moyers retirement and not heard

>of Mel Gilles, what a wonderful person to do what she is doing for

>victims. When I was a victim I had no place to turn and had to grin

>and bare it until I could leave at 17. I wasn't sure I would live

>through it though. Unfortunately it has stayed with me all my life

>but my story has a very happy ending. I rose above it and have had

>a very happy life.- Thanks Connie and Wanita!

-