| Subject: Re: IRC |
| From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
| Date: 10/6/10, 18:24 |
| To: Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com> |
If youve heard of Randy Forbes, you most likely did so in the context of some or another occasion on which the congressman took the floor of the House in order to put forth a great deal of nonsense about how the United States was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. Days after Obama's effort to communicate to the Muslim world one of America's most fundamental and wholesome aspects - its encoded neutrality towards every variety of thought and conscience - Forbes took the opportunity to undermine this message and convince Muslims at home and abroad that the United States is fundamentally and institutionally opposed to their beliefs.
Aside from being harmful to the present administration's reasonable and necessary attempts to heal the rift between our republic and a population that has largely come to see it as their enemy, Forbes' assertions are abject nonsense and may be shown to be such with a mere five minutes of research. In 1797 the Congress unanimously passed and President John Adams signed into law the Treaty of Tripoli, which plainly states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." In the same era, Thomas Jefferson wrote to a correspondent that he did not "find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature" and that religions are "all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." In his own correspondence, John Adams asked, "How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends, and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?" I need not bother quoting Thomas Paine; the reluctance of our nation's theocrats to even mention the fellow conveys more in silence than Paine himself could in thousands of words. At any rate, Forbes himself once introduced a House resolution that "the Holy Bible is God's word." It is reassuring that this supremely unconstitutional effort was defeated in the House; it is less reassuring that such a thing would even come up for a vote.
Forbes is, of course, up for re-election this November, and it would be an easy enough thing for anyone who prefers truth over falsehood and consistency over confusion to support any opponent merely by default. Happily, one need not do so, as the opponent in question is Wynne LeGrow, a retired doctor who has shown from the outset a willingness to place his own principles over expediency, and who may thus be expected to do so as an officeholder. At the beginning of his campaign, LeGrow made a decision that damaged his chance to win but kept his integrity in tact: he announced to voters that he is an atheist.
There are probably a great many atheists and agnostics in Congress at any given moment, and most of those probably managed to attain such an office only by keeping their religious opinions secret; polls routinely show that atheists are mistrusted more than any other group, including Muslims. Pete Stark of California is a rare exception, having been up front about his atheism from the very beginning and having since proved his integrity and competence to those who believe that atheists are inherently devoid of both. If LeGrow wins this race - and he has a very good chance, as the district is not particularly conservative and in fact went for Obama in 2008 - it will demonstrate to the nation and the world that Stark is not a fluke, that good candidates can indeed be elected in this country without sharing any of the religious beliefs held by most of their constituents.
Of course, LeGrow's atheism has become central to Forbes' efforts to dissuade voters from supporting him. Nonetheless, LeGrow has managed to win over many of those whom the attacks were meant to persuade. As LeGrow's campaign manager Antonio Elias wrote to me earlier this week:
Within our own support base we have had only two instances of "dissent" due to the articles. One was an 87-year-old African American minister and staunch Democrat in Chesapeake who was quoted in the paper as saying "I could not vote for a man who doesn't believe in some power higher than his". Wynne phoned and then met with the Reverend. By the end of the meeting he was totally on our side and said "we have to get this man elected!"
Clearly, there are a great many voters in Virginia's 4th district who could be brought around to support LeGrow if only they were to be exposed to his message and his stance on those issues that will have a direct impact on their families in the coming years. And the district in question is among those in which one's donation will go farther than most in purchasing ad space and otherwise getting that message across.
This race is among the most important and potentially symbolic of the 2010 elections. Rarely has the contrast been more stark than it is here, where a competent contender is challenging a ten-year incumbent who himself is partly responsible for the policies that have left hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, that have cost well over a trillion dollars, that have damaged our credibility in the eyes of both our own citizens and those of the world, and otherwise deployed any number of amoral and destructive means in pursuit of no identifiable end - and who has responded largely by reminding voters that his challenger does not share their particular religion. If LeGrow loses, the race will have served as another vindication of the degenerate tactics on which the Republican Party has largely come to rely in seeking power; if he wins, it will serve as proof to both America and the world that such tactics have run their course, and that Americans will occasionally choose a man who has demonstrated competence and integrity even to his personal detriment over another man who has demonstrated neither over the course of ten disastrous years.
If you'd like to have a hand in winning what has developed into a proxy battle between the clear values of the Constitution and the muddled proclamations of our nation's theocrats, join LeGrow's e-mail list, volunteer to assist with his phone banking efforts, or make a financial contribution.
Also, just to show you who we're dealing with here in Randy Forbes:Forbes has backed measures to establish a government-sanctioned national day of prayer. He sponsored legislation that would reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the nation's motto and have it posted in every public building and classroom. He introduced a House resolution that called for placing Abraham Lincoln's Bible in the visitor center and requiring Congress to affirm that "the Holy Bible is God's word." None of the measures have passed the House.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:I was thinking of going on the attack as well since that's my forte; his opponent has been in congress for a couple of years so I'm having a couple of my people do opposition research in preparation for that, looking through the congressional record andhis public statements so I can pull out contradictions and whatnot. Thanks for your help, I'm going to talk to LeGrow by phone soon and see what good stuff I can get from that, will send you the e-mail later today.On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com> wrote:
Id be thrilled to help. Send me the info and I will forward on to everybody.
Just finished a piece for gillibrand, and another one for the womens media center. With a bit of money we could do a very cool video for wayne that took on the faith issue in a direct way (something like wyane believes that EVERY virginian has the absolute right to believe whatever they were raised to believe etc.)Okay, I'll get on that. Also, I'm now serving as an operative for the Wynne LeGrow campaign in Virginia's 4th congressional district; Enlighten the Vote, the PAC for which I serve as dir of comm, has been assisting him in raising money but they're really not good at doing that, so I'm stepping in to do so with my own resources (and will be offering free communications assistance to other campaigns for candidates of which I approve in the future). LeGrow is an admitted atheist who's up against a Republican incumbent who's a member of the Prayer Caucus and who of course has taken full advantage of LeGrow's candor. Nonetheless, LeGrow has a decent chance of winning; the district went for Obama in the last election, and LeGrow has managed to change the minds of local religious leaders who were initially put off by his lack of faith, simply by meeting and talking with them. It's also a low-dollar race in which a couple of thousand dollars can provide for relatively large ad buys; the campaign was hoping to get $2,000 out of Enlighten the Vote in a month of fundraising. I'm going to write up some materials today, including an e-mail appeal and some posts for Daily Kos and HuffPo; let me know if you'd be willing to forward an e-mail appeal to any contacts you might have who would be willing to consider donating or setting up phone banks in such a race as this, or if you have any other ideas.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com> wrote:
It cant hurt. Its easy and some of that shit is hilarious.
Do you want me to go ahead and do a sample on Xtranormal?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:
Yeah, I think animation would be a great format for this sort of thing and would open a lot of possibilities in terms of content. I'll check out Xtranormal tonight.
Also, I'm going to forward you the content of an e-mail that my associate Clark Robinson sends out to new recruits; it'll bring you up to speed on Project PM and give you a better sense of what we have to work with. Over the last couple of weeks I've had a chance to get things going with that, am now setting up teams and delegating projects and all that. Am finishing up a column for Skeptical Inquirer that will announce our new Science Journalism Improvement Project whereby we'll match up freelancers with scientists in order to produce superior articles for sale to newspapers and other outlets, among other strategies.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com <http://robertogreen@gmail.com> > wrote:
Im in. shooting something tomorrow but had an interesting meeting today with an animation house and I was thinking about your sketch done animated in flash. Maybe we should do a sample in xtranormal?
On 10/4/10 6:35 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:
One my project pm guys just set up an IRC room in which we have ongoing discussions about our various projects. Right now it's just me a few other of our main people but we'll be sending out an invitation to our 75 or so members so it should develop quickly into an interesting environment due to the erudite nature of the people who'll be on.
if you want to check it out, download xchat, choose the freenode server, and type #projectpm when it asks you what channel you want.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302