Maybe you were wondering about the growth of the progressive blogosphere? Maybe you were wondering how to keep track of all the terrific political blogs in your state? Well, there is a way. LeftyBlogs is an aggregator, organized by state. Its simple; nicely designed. Very well done.

Here is what they say about themselves: “LeftyBlogs is the place to find out what’s happening in the progressive blogosphere across the country, in every state. Our goal? To help progressives get organized and take back America coast to coast.”

If you have a progressive oriented blog, all you have to do is sign up. I just did, joining a number of my fellow MA political bloggers who were way ahead of me on this. I seem to be the 821st in the nation to sign up.

Here is the aggregator for Massachusetts.

Please welcome Writer’s Voice to the MA blogosphere!

While Writer’s Voice is not exactly a political blog of the sort that I customarily highlight here, it does feature Massachusetts’ authors, including some who write on political subjects. But the main reason I want to highlight Writer’s Voice is that in an age of corporatization of all forms of media, publishing and distribution, it is essential that we progressives support our not only our writers, but the institutions related to independent publishing — such as independent book publishers, independent bookstores, and independent broadcasters.

“Writer’s Voice is a show about writers & writing in Western New England. We interview authors from the region and others who are just passing through, as well as folks who can tell listeners about the business of writing. Join us every Friday at 5:30 pm on WMUA 91.1 FM in Amherst and on the Web at www.wmua.org.”

One of the reasons why the Right, both religious and secular, has risen to power over the past few decades has been their recognition of the importance of waging what they call “the war of ideas.” Part of their strategy in this war has been to systematically support their writers and thinkers through the research and writing of books and articles, and to provide funding and resources for promoting the author and the work once published.

Much emphasis has been given to answering the Right with progressive “think tanks.” I think this is good, but just one part of a much larger puzzle. I am not going to lay out a manifesto on the entire subject today, but simply state that a program to support progressive publishing must include the following elements: Support writers by insisting on decent payment and fair treatment from publishers and publications; support progressive publications and insist that the foundation community help excellent but struggling non-profit publications and the institutions that sustain them; support independent bookstores that are not part of the big corporate chains; and finally, support independent publishers of progressive non-fiction. This latter point is the subject of a signficant radio interview this coming Friday.

Writer’s Voice interviews Jennifer Nix, editor-at-large for Chelsea Green Publishing(that is publishing Kos’ forthcoming book). Nix published a provocative essay on Alternet recently, asking why if the corporate media is so bad, do people like Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Al Franken and David Corn publish books with them? Nix points out that Chelsea made a name for itself and for George Lakoff, by propelling his book Don’t Think of An Elephant onto the New York Times best seller list and inventing an alterative system of marketing:

“We did this by partnering with progressive activist and indy media groups, to launch the book via e-mail blasts and on various web sites, like MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Apollo Alliance, Jim Hightower, GreenFestival, AlterNet and more. We also got a lot of help from the blogs, like DailyKos and BoingBoing. We published a book about new, progressive ideals, and rather than going the traditional and lengthy turn-your-hair-gray publishing route (calling on galleys, sales reps, early reviews, and ads), we went directly to progressives to get Lakoff’s book out into the world. It worked. We created a new publishing model. And we’re not shy about telling you that Chelsea Green and Mr. Lakoff have made a very nice chunk of change.”

Francesca Rheannon’s interview with Jennifer Nix on Writer’s Voice airs 5:30-6:30pm EST on WMUA 91.1 FM, the radio station of the University of Massachusetts. Writer’s Voice is a project of the Western New England Chapter of the National Writers Union. The program can be heard on streaming audio, and the podcast will eventually be archived here.

“This rant is really not meant to excoriate progressive writers,” Nix continues in her Alternet essay, “but to draw attention to the fact that you need to do more than talk the talk about media reform. Independent publishers are with you, fighting against what’s happening to our media, to our democracy and to our country. How much sense does it make to publish your books with the likes of corporate publishers, with the proceeds going to strengthen the very media and political systems against which you rail so eloquently? Why not make money for yourselves and also funnel profits into strengthening independent presses by giving us a chance to work with your names and ideas?”

“No one is asking you to make less money, or to see your books die on the vine due to a lack of publicity, marketing or distribution. Book publishing has always been a crapshoot in corporate hands, and it always will be. Why not align your efforts with nimble, committed folks who are working to reform our media while they sell books? Just as the internet is changing politics, it is changing media — and it is changing the slow and antiquated world of book publishing. We’ve proven it, and we can keep proving it, with ever more inventive ways of reaching out to the public.”

“You no longer have to make deals with the devil of corporate might in order to sell your books. Independent book publishers can work with writers to find their audiences, and create new echo chambers with technology and various independent media partners. Together, we can spread word of your important ideas — and turn them into bestsellers.”

While we are on the subject, my publisher,
Common Courage Press is another fine publisher of progressive non-fiction deserving of far greater attention and support. Give them a click, pull-out a shopping cart, and sample the merchandise. You won’t be sorry.

But if you want to buy my book, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, which was the selection of The Daily Kos Reading Club this month, you can support this progressive writer by buying it directly from me.

The controversy over the now withdrawn NARAL ad attacking John Roberts, president Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, obscured an important bit of history, and a fair question about Roberts’ role in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, the Supreme Court case at the heart of the ad controversy.

Gloria Feldt, who served as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1996-2005, recounts, in a recent article on Alternet, what it was like for clinics during the days of mob attacks by Operation Rescue. Prior to becoming president of PPFA, Feldt had headed the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Phoenix. Keep in mind, that OR was never a non-violent protest organization. They were more like angry mobs intent on interfering with people’s constitutional rights to receive and to perform abortions. Criminal violence was often involved.

Feldt writes that Robert’s legalistic amicus brief written in support of Operation Rescue’s position, had the effect of supporting their activities. To say that Roberts was just doing his job in arguing a point of law before the court would have more merit, if he and his colleagues in the Bush Justice Department had chosen to take action to otherwise protect the rights of clinics and patients against the thuggery of Operation Rescue and similar groups operating at the time.

One does not have to agree with the NARAL ad to see that there is a wider problem of indifference to and arguably tacit support for Operation Rescue’s highly public activities and the concurrent acts of violence. If this kind of activity had been directed against say banks, car dealers, newspapers or courthouses, the response of the Justice Department would have been quite different. Why the double standard? It is OK to look the other way when mobs attack legal health care organizations?

Here are some excerpts from Feldt’s article:

“From 1977 to 2000, there were 675 blockades, 365 invasions, 322 death threats, 502 bomb threats, 112 assaults and batteries, 40 bombings, 16 attempted murders and 8 murders in the name of ‘life.’ I personally was stalked, picketed at home and subjected to death threats, in addition to enduring bomb and arson attempts, vandalism, and an invasion at the health centers for which I was responsible.”

“The year Bray was decided, 1991, was smack in the middle of this period years. It was a pivotal time, before any murders had occurred. It was a moment of opportunity when the violence and harassment could have de-escalated if law enforcement at all levels had joined together and taken strong stands against it.”

“One of the things I learned during this time was that local law enforcement takes many cues from the Justice Department, and further, that the Justice Department has a unique capacity to bring law enforcement at all levels together, to enhance the effectiveness of local law enforcement when it is overwhelmed by massive actions like OR. They can proactively set a pattern of enforcing the law and keeping the peace.”

“Instead, the Bush I justice department — with Ken Starr as its chief litigator and John Roberts as his top deputy, strategist and chief arguer — did no such thing. Indeed, they chose to do just the opposite…”

“Though Roberts says he was merely arguing on behalf of the administration’s position, in the end that is an inexcusable reason. He appeared twice before the Court to argue Bray, and appeared in the media to speak for his case. And though the case was decided 6-3 in favor of the protestors on a technicality concerning the law’s applicability to this case, quotes from dissenting justices, including Sandra Day O’Connor, whose seat Roberts wants to fill, are telling….”

“Justice Stevens…. castigated the plaintiffs, saying, “[T]he demonstrations in the 1960′s were motivated by a desire to extend the equal protection of the laws to all classes — not to impose burdens on any disadvantaged class. … The suggestion that there is an analogy between their struggle to achieve equality and these petitioners’ concerted efforts to deny women equal access to a constitutionally protected privilege may have rhetorical appeal, but it is insupportable on the record before us.”

“Justice O’Connor compared Operation Rescue’s behavior to the Ku Klux Klan itself, noting that “[l]ike the Klan conspiracies, Congress tried to reach in enacting §1985(3), ‘[p]etitioners intended to hinder a particular group in the exercise of their legal rights because of their membership in a specific class.”

“Am I saying then that John Roberts supports or condones violence? Of course not…. But I am saying that when he had a chance to weigh in and explicitly oppose the rising tide of violence that continued to escalate over the ensuing years, he did not. That is a serious question of character.”

Welcome to Walk In Brain who has transplanted from Cincinnati to North Adams, MA. He has plunged right into MA politics and found that the water is fine.

Also, a belated discovery of Beyond 495 who blogs from Townsend and goes by the handle Mariposa. She has organized her blogroll according to “Badass Mass Blogs” and “Kickass Blogs.” Right on.

Beyond 495 may also be the best name in the MA political blogosphere. Thats because it is so difficult for some to imagine anything beyond that circumference of Bosto-consciousness. To suggest to these poor souls — to actually travel beyond 495 — can be like proposing to mount the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Beyond 495 generously provides a map for these reluctant travelers right in her logo. The map only goes as far as I-91 — but I guess its better to break it to them gently. The vastness of “western Mass” beyond 91 might be too much for some folks to take-in all at once.

But I have good news for wary 495 insiders. There is actually sustenance available for those foolhardy — nay, adventurous — souls who attempt to cross the Commonwealth Divide at 91. Having traversed and settled out here in the vastness, and having consulted my field notes and my journals, I can confirm not only the existence of but I have actually sampled an exotic sandwich called “West of Woostah,” at Sylvester’s restaurant in Northampton — just beyond 91.

One of the participants in tonight’s broadcast of Justice Sunday II is William Donohue head of the Manhattan-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, one of the organizations participating in weekly conference calls to mobilize support for the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Newsday reports: “‘I’m going to try to do my job to intimidate the Senate Judiciary Committee so they do their job more carefully,’ he said of his remarks.”

“Intimidate? Did he really mean that?,” Newsday asked. “‘Absolutely,’ he replied.”

(For more, see my Backgrounder on Justice Sunday II)

First a bit of news. The American Jewish Committee has asked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay not to appear on the Justice Sunday II telecast.

“Sponsors of Justice Sunday II are promoting the insidious and baseless notion that the U.S. Supreme Court is hostile towards people of faith,” wrote AJC President E. Robert Goodkind and Executive Director David Harris in a letter to Rep. DeLay. ‘We urge you to reconsider lending your name and the stature of your office to the Justice Sunday campaign.”

“‘America is a nation of diverse faith communities, and the political views of members of those communities run across the spectrum,’ wrote AJC. ‘The Supreme Court, like the judicial branch as a whole, is a microcosm of this diversity.’”

“‘The publicity campaign of Justice Sunday II inaccurately suggests that all good people of faith adhere to the same tenets, beliefs, and understanding of political or legal questions. This characterization erroneously implies that promoting an interpretation of the law at odds with the conference’s sponsors constitutes hostility towards religion,’ Goodkind and Harris wrote in their letter to Rep. DeLay.”

Yesterday, I updated the state of the struggle, Battle of Justice Sunday Heats Up which generated considerable discussion on The Daily Kos. And I am glad to see that Armando has followed up with a dicussion this afternoon.

For those interested in more background going into tomorrow’s rally for religious supremacism, here is an anthology of my posts on this subject over the past few weeks. The most recent first:

Counter Event to Justice Sunday

Focus on Dobson & Perkins

Taking on the Demagogues Behind Justice Sunday

DeLay to Speak at Rally for Religious Sumpremacism.

A Black Baptist Minister Takes on the Theocrats.

Rally for a Theocratic Judiciary.

COMMUNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY

When: Sunday, August 14 at 3 p.m.

Where: Cathedral of Praise (Pentecostal Tabernacle) 4300 Clarksville Pike, Nashville, TN

What: Several Nashville and national organizations will gather to let Americans know that there are many people of faith who understand the importance of the separation of church and state, who believe that all faith traditions should respect one another, and who oppose the use of government to impose the beliefs of one doctrine upon our diverse country. The gathering is intended to give Americans a spirited and inclusive message.

Local Speakers: Bishop Maynard, Cathedral of Praise Tabernacle; Bishop Walker, Mt. Zion Ministry; and numerous others to be confirmed later this week.

National Speakers: Rev. Rita Brock, theologian and founder of Faith Voices; Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for separation of Church and State; Patrick Mroteck, president of Christian Alliance for Progress, and Rev. Emilee Whitehurst, director of Austin area Interreligious Ministries.

The battle of Justice Sunday II promises to be a pivotal moment in the struggle over the federal judiciary that will set the agenda of the nation for generations. The effort is to energize conservative Christians in support of president Bush’s judicial nominees. But progressive religious leaders of many faiths are speaking out against the Christian Right’s rally for religious supremacy this Sunday, and the battle is likely to escalate before and after the event.

Focus on the Family is countering with pre-rally interviews with the speakers, and the Trinity Broadcasting Network, the largest religious broadcaster in the U.S., announced today that TBN will broadcast a tape delay of the rally at 10pm EST on Sunday.

And in recognition of the importance of bloggers, the Family Research Council is paying to import a number of unnamed bloggers to Nashville to generate post event buzz. Uninvited is progressive blogger and UCC seminarian Chuck Currie who charges that the leaders of Justice Sunday, are attempting to “equate Christianity with support of conservative judicial nominees.”

Meanwhile, progressive religious leaders held a national teleconference with reporters today. Their entire statements and the audiofeed are available at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Here are some quotes:

“It is damaging to the legitimacy of the confirmation process to suggest that the necessary and comprehensive examination of a nominee’s record, as well as support for or opposition to a nominee is in any way religiously motivated.” — Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA

“The judiciary has long upheld the Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and separation of church and state that make our nation the most religiously diverse and robust democratic country in the world. It is troubling when people of faith are calling for the courts themselves to break down the wall separating church and state that has protected the right to freely exercise their beliefs.” — Ms. Mirin Kaur Phool, President, Board of Directors, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund

“People are [asking] a diverse array of questions pertaining to Judge Roberts’ broader judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation as well as more detailed queries regarding his interpretation of privacy and the establishment clause. What all of these questions do have in common is that they deserve to be answered.” — Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

“No person or group can honestly claim to represent ‘the’ single authentic faith perspective on a given issue. Americans of faith and good will differ on the issues facing our country today, but those differences should never be cause for questioning another’s faith or patriotism.” — Rev. Bill Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association

Meanwhile, Focus on the Family’s political magazine Citizen Link is conducting a series of interviews with rally speakers in advance of the event.

Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, claims in her interview that “the Supreme Court is demonstrating hostility to religion,” and she will urge “Congress to act on its Article III power to take away jurisdiction from the court on those areas where we don’t trust them — starting with the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the definition of marriage and the Boy Scouts.”

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Bowie, MD, invokes the bogus ideology of Christian nationalism to explain his involvement in Justice Sunday: “America will either remain a Christian nation protected by laws based on morality or it will become more morally lawless than every before…. The Supreme Court is the front line of the spiritual battle for the culture.” Regarding his message to viewers on Sunday, Jackson said: “I will call upon the two sleeping giants of America’s culture–the black church and the white church–to move from individual impact to combined significance.”

For a discussion of the views of rally organizers James Dobson and Tony Perkins, see my post, Focus on Dobson & Perkins:

“James Dobson the founder and caudillo of Focus on the Family…. who may be the most powerful Christian Right leader in the country, routinely uses his national radio broadcasts to demagogue his concerns about what he calls the “unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious” judiciary. He claims judges are “determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they’re out of control….”

“Dobson could more accurately say these things about himself: he is unelected and far less accountable for his words and actions than judges at any level.”

The blogosphere is a mysterious place to many in politics. Talk about the “netroots” — and people may look at you like you are from Mars. But that may be about to change.

Strange as it will seem to some, the blog phenomenon is an important trend in politics. So naturally, a think tank commissioned a report. Fortunately, they hired two pioneering progressive political bloggers, Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller to produce it. For candidates and political operatives at all levels, Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere: A New Force in American Politics is must-reading. Fortunately there is still some beach reading time left in the season. This is especially fortunate for political consultants and campaign managers who are now going to have to scramble to pretend that they are ahead of (or at least not behind) the curve on this.

The report is going to further catalyze a trend that was already well underway: progressive political bloggers will be a significant factor in the 2006 elections at all levels, in many parts of the country.

Sco offers an MA political blogger’s perspective on the report titled: How To Leverage Local Blogs For Dummies (and Candidates).

And Kos has a post about the report and the importance of local political blogs — and he has some advice for candidates: “First thing campaigns need to do is read Chris and Matt’s report. Do the things recommended in Appendix 1. Us bloggers will take you much more seriously if you do.”