“Education Works, Prisons Don’t” was the call to action that attracted hundreds of concerned New Yorkers at a Harlem teach-in, sponsored by United New York Black Radical Congress, on October 27-28, 2000. The teach-in brought together students, parents, teachers, community activists, and leaders from politics, unions and religious institutions.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Ooo, it's getting nasty out there. Do you love the idea that a group from McAllen, that doesn't have to report who gave it money or how much or where it came from or what its purpose is, is running a TV ad accusing Clinton-Gore of treason?

This remake of the infamous classic "daisy ad" from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 campaign accuses the current administration of having "sold" the nation's security to "Communist Red China" -- that's as opposed to Communist China, Red China or even just China -- in exchange for campaign contributions. And as a result, China "has the ability to threaten our homes with long-range nuclear warheads." None of which is true, by the way. My favorite moment was when the group's spokesman told The New York Times that the group was formed to bring "accountability" to politics.

Meanwhile, Our Boy George -- the uniter not the divider, the one who promises to restore civility to Washington politics -- is getting so mean that it's creating newspaper headlines. So much for his pledge not to wage a campaign of personal attacks.

A censor's work is never done.

For several decades, the Pacifica Foundation -- which owns five radio stations and operates a small national network -- nurtured precious experiments in the arid terrain of radioland. Pacifica has provided listeners with wide-ranging discussion, progressive analysis and independent news coverage, in acute contrast to America's usual corporate-backed media fare.

But during the last few years, Pacifica's board of directors made itself a self-selecting body with an increasingly mainstream agenda. The more highhanded the new hierarchy became -- and the more it deserved strong criticism -- the more determined it became to prevent criticism of itself from getting onto Pacifica airwaves.

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Gen. George Patton said of war, "God help me, but I love it so." I realize that the only people in America having a good time right now are political reporters, but we haven't had this much fun since Grandpa fell in the fish pond. What could be more exciting than David Broder and Tom Oliphant trading thoughts on whether a heavy black voter turnout in north Florida will make all the difference?

OK, Nader voters. Let's talk.

I'm voting for Ralph. I'm voting for Nader because I believe in him, admire him and would like to see his issues and policies triumph in our political life. I'm also voting for him because I live in Texas -- where all 32 electoral votes will go to George W. Bush even if I stand on my head, turn blue and vote for Gus Hall, the late communist.

I know that many of my fellow Nader voters are young people and probably don't want to hear from a geriatric progressive. (We had to walk three miles through the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways.) But I have learned some things just from hanging around this long, and with your permission, I will pass them on.

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." How quickly the Gore liberals adopt a totalitarian mindset, sounding like Soviet commissars back in the old days who would urge the voters towards a 98 percent turnout for the Communist candidate, arguing that any deviation from absolute loyalty would "objectively" play into the hands of the imperialists.

A vote for Nader is first and foremost a vote for Nader. And since the programs of the Democratic and Republican candidates are pretty much the same on issues ranging from corporate welfare to Wall Street to the war on drugs to crime or to military spending, a vote for Gore is actually a vote for Bush, and a vote for Bush is a vote for Gore. It was the same in 1996. Clinton or Dole? Vote for Clinton, and you got Dole anyway.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Great. George W. Bush sounds like English is his second language, and Al Gore sounds like he thinks it's yours. It's like having Ted Baxter of the old "Mary Tyler Moore" show running for president: Gore has Ted's manner, and Bush has his brain.

The oddest thing about this presidential campaign is the extent to which it is almost entirely focused on Gore. His every utterance is parsed in unsparing exegesis by the media. Every nuance of his wardrobe is examined in endless detail. (If he'd taken to golfers' brilliant colors rather than earth tones, what do we think this would have said about his foreign policy decisions?) His every change of debate strategy is read as a clue to the inner man. Indeed, the fact that he changed debate strategy is trumpeted as evidence that he suffers from multiple personality disorder.

My favorite new line by the Bushies is: How Dare They Call Him Stupid? Not that any Gorey has ever called Bush stupid -- but if you imply that they have, it makes them sound condescending. This is getting to be the problem that dare not speak its name.

BOSTON -- The news media missed the third debate because they were so focused on Al Gore. Gore was again aggressive, Gore was arguably over the line a couple of times -- anyone see any sign of a new stretcher? They missed George W. Bush's performance.

A lady named Lisa Kee stood up and asked, "How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents?"

So Gore told how his proposal would affect her, and then it was Bush's turn. He said Gore's plan would cost a whole lot of money -- "a lot more than we have."

He then explained: "I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don't get the new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways.

Earthlings have continued a tradition of bizarre rituals during their planet's current season. A columnist from the Galactic Syndicate provides this analysis:

From afar, we may be inclined to smirk at the activities of humanoid creatures who inhabit the only life-covered orb in what they call "the solar system." But all of us should do our best to understand events on Earth, no matter how strange they may be.

The watery planet, located 93 million miles from its sun, is currently dominated by one nation, the United States of America. Because of its preeminent power on that globe, the governance of the USA is of considerable interest.

While admirable in some respects, Earthlings -- who number several billion -- are not the most self-aware of beings. Their conceits and pretensions are apt to calcify into formulaic rites, often embraced with credulous fervor.

And so it goes in the United States, where a new leader is selected once every 1,460 cycles of darkness and light. Prior to the election, in which some of the USA's citizens vote, events occur which are known as "debates."

WASHINGTON -- As they used to say, long ago and far away, there it is.

Tuesday night's debate gave us the real Al Gore and the real George W. Bush. Gore won -- he may even have killed -- but he's still annoying. One can only conclude that that smarmy, pietistic streak of his is absolutely authentic; that's exactly who he really is.

He's sharp as a razor, knows his onions (does anyone else outside of Congress know what "Dingell-Norwood" is?) and will probably be a good president. Bush not only amply demonstrated his vast ignorance but also was so profoundly misleading on his supposed role in the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights that I have to conclude he knowingly lied.

It's possible to not know or be confused about a lot of things, but Bush cannot possibly believe what he said: "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." He was there, I was there, and that's flat untrue. He reviewed the details of the bill accurately, so it was clear that he had recently prepped on the subject.

Bill Clinton has always been one for the phony reconciliation, the win-win solution, the photo-op deal. The defining moment of his diplomacy was the "handshake" between Rabin and Arafat, offered to the world as the insignia of a decent settlement brokered by America.

It was nothing of the sort. As Israel's guardian, the United States shoved down Arafat's throat a deal that was bound to blow up in the end. What else could one expect of arrangements that saw Israeli settlements relentlessly expand, no right of return for hundreds of thousands of evicted Palestinians, Israeli-Arabs as second-class citizens, Palestinian colonies under Israeli army supervision, and no capital in Jerusalem? In the end, after years of groveling, even Arafat had to say "No."

Pages

Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS