http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.htm

It’s unfortunate that a book so full of facts to back up the errant ways of our country has this urban legend in it.

http://www.davidcorn.com" rel="nofollow"> http://www.davidcorn.com

You can’t have a “War on Terror” if no one is afraid.

We discussed this at Good Nonsense here and here.

Glenn’s observations about our patriot founders were tantamount to a “call to arms”; our founders risked life and limb as freedom fighters, prepared to forfeit all to defend their liberties. (p. 97-98)

How could we do any less?

Those who won’t fight for their country when all that is required is a trip to the ballot box are pretty unlikely to pick up arms and endanger their lives against tanks and automatic weapons.

No- if this isnt stopped in the next couple of election cycles- it wont be stopped at all.

Well then it won’t be stopped at all. Let’s be realistic here – how many Ned Lemonts are there out there? If every single American eligible to vote did so how many Lemont’s would be elected? Why is it that the DLC is not supporting truly progressive candidates? Why is it that Hillary will be the nominee instead of Feingold? Why is Hillary now in bed with the likes of Murdoch? Not only is the counting of the vote a sham but even if it were totally on the up and up it wouldn’t matter. For all you Democrats out there that have been paying attention I have no idea how you could possibly conclude that the current or near future crop of Dems will be in any way significantly different than the Cons.

Having said all of that a “violent” call to arms is not necessary. Gandhi and MLK were fairly effective with their campaigns. Not that I personally would mind a violent call to arms – I am more than ready and willing to attempt kick some ass. Either way, direct action will need to be taken if we want our country back. If you doubt that then you haven’t been paying attention.

As for Glenn’s book… I am a frequent commenter at his site and although I do not think he would feel or even necessarily want his book to be a “call to arms” that is what it is for me. Given the current situation I am not sure how it can be interpreted in any other way. Another commenter there has started a direct action site. Check it out. Link below.

http://daywithoutapatriot.blogspot.com/

“Greenwald shows us where the fear comes from.”

I know that this topic is covered in the second half of the book and I didn’t want to ‘jump ahead’ but since you and DMM have broached the subject and Jane has not objected, I’ll toss my two cents in.

I’ve always believed that one of the keys to rendering the Bush administration impotent is to confront their fear mongering head on. Fear is perhaps that world’s most powerful marketing tool. I can argue with logic and reason all day long and have no impact, but if I can make you fear, then I can get you to buy whatever it is I’m selling – from the right deodorant to fences for Mexicans to a total dismantling of our constitution.

So what I’d love to see from the blogosphere is some serious head banging (hint, hint to those of you attending YKOS) to come up with a host of ways that we could begin to address the fear Bush uses to sell his agenda. We simply cannot wait for the mainstream Democrats to lead on this issue — they have not, they cannot, they will not — primarily because they have bought into the fear Bush sells with every committee and floor vote they have cast.

I’ve frequently pointed out that since 2001, roughly 3,000 people in the US have been killed by terrorists. In that same 5-year period, roughly 200,000 Americans have been killed in auto accidents on our highways – the vast majority of which are preventable. Yet no one seriously proposes a “war on accidents” or suggests dismantling our constitution to reduce highway deaths. No one proposes a moratorium on driving until we can prevent those deaths. No one panics because another 40,000 will die this year. In terms of relative risk, you are far more likely to die in your automobile than you are from a terrorist attack.

But I’m not sure that explaining relative risk to people is the best way to proceed. I’d like to hear ideas from others on this.

Hope the kids better soon C – roll on single payer eh.

As Greenwald shows, Professor John Yoo of Boalt Law School, UC Berkeley, provided legal cover for the BushCo power grab with his concept of the “Unitary Presidency”.

I’d like to see John Yoo’s ideas exposed a bit more.

He’s teaching Constitutional Law but his message seems to be that the Constitution can be massaged into whatever you want it to be.

No doubt he’s a smart guy but how does Boalt see Yoo as an asset to their faculty?