Monday, August 30, 2004

Bush has Questionable Motives in the World

Bush is showing his true colors when he says he doesn't think we can win the "war" against terrorists, it sounds a lot like the war that would never end (because it was so convenient for domestic governing) in Orwell's 1984. Josh Marshall points out that if Kerry had made such a controversial statement the press would be all over that comment. It would be a shock to me if Kerry said that because he wants to defeat the terrorists. Bush and his neocons, on the other hand, have used the fight against terrorists to justify everything they want for the world and our darkening domestic policies, and even as an argument to keep them in power. The latter argument is ridiculous and exactly not what this country needs!

For Bush and his neocons, all our money, all our resources should help them get richer and the U.S. more powerful in the World. They get richer and wage wars at the expense of our environment and public education (many neocons think public education should not exist, they believe only private schools should exist--if you don't believe me ask Bill O'Reilly). If you are not deeply suspicious of the neocons, check out "Uncovered: The War in Iraq." Al-Qaeda wants Islam to be the only religion in the world, the neocons are philosophically similar to al-Qaeda because they want the U.S. to dominate the world with power and fear--also like al-Qaeda, these radically "conservative" men and women are not interested in creating a peaceful, comfortable, and prosperous life for Americans. The neocons (already privileged people) want to use our military (underprivileged people) to make the rest of the world serve their purposes (probably for oil money). The neocons have an advantage over al-Qaeda because they are currently running our government--although they are probably surprised (if they are objectively observant, which is questionable) that their whacked agenda has spread our military too thin and is exhausting it. Iraq is the first target on their empirialistic rampage, as King George put it, their "Crusade."

Yes, they don't care a wit if we win the "war" against terrorists. The terrorists are a bate and switch for them to do whatever they like with our military.

Please, please, vote Bush and his neocons out of office. They are doing anything and will do anything to hold onto power--they have shown us exactly how they operate. They bully and lie to get what they want--they want no debate, no learning, no progress, no peace. When have you ever heard a neocon inspire you to be a better person or part of a better nation? They simply do all they can to make us fear other people.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Fundamental Fairness is not a corporate value...

Exactly what's wrong with media competition, no big ideas:

Ted Turner's Story

Our Stubborn President

"The chances of New York to host the Olympic games in 2012 were not that
good. But now they were lowered to zero."

-- An International Olympic Committee member, quoted by Spiegel(translated by Florian and Google), citing the Bush campaign's refusal to pull a campaign ad that uses Olympics images.

Quoted From Taegan Goddard's Blog

Thursday, August 26, 2004


I need to review it again, but last night on Fox News Sean Hanity (sp) heavily implied if not stated that Kerry "admitted to committing atrocities" in Vietnam (he implied that Kerry burned down a village--an outrageous accusation). Hanity said this should disqualify him from being an Abu Ghraib security guard. This is never what Kerry has said or admitted. He related the confessions of others before Congress, not his own record.

It looks like Hanity should be sued for slander.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

If you agree with me you are a Great American

No, I don't actually believe that, I believe that there are great Americans who disagree with me. My conservative friend in Ohio is one of them. I'm making the point though, that many wingnut conservative radio hosts are greeting their call-in cheerleaders with this greeting, "You are a great American." I can't help but think that they are implying that every lefty is not--or at least--anyone who might disagree with them is not.

I threw a fit on Sunday when I watched a Republican Congressman being absolutely rude to a Democratic Congressman on Meet the Press. The R actually questioned the credibility of the Dem sitting right next to him just because they had a difference of opinion about the Governor of New Jersey. It was so tacky and rude. It became so clear to me that this is the Republican technique:

If you do not agree with me on X or Y, I will do everything in my power to discredit you and your world view.

This is what's happening with the Swift Boat liars, this is what they tried with McCain (and we'll see it again if McCain runs against a future Bushie friend--don't anyone wonder exactly why McCain is supporting his former nemesis Bush NOW), and that is what they did to Max Cleland, and Ann Coulter and her ilk do EVERY DAY.

Discrediting opponents has nothing to do with a healthy debate and progress on issues that matter--it has to do with gaining or retaining power.

Debate and nationwide improvements are obviously obscure conservative values these days.

Macho Justice

If you're as tired as I am of macho and justice being equated by the right (and some on the left), and wonder why Cheney gets no rebuke and offers no apology for saying F-- on the Senate floor...and Rumsfeld takes no heat over internationally shamed Abu Ghraib...

Finally, a great analysis of why it's not smart to always be a mindless bully:

Rambo Coalition

Bush twisting Kerry's words

Couldn't be clearer how untruthfully the Bushies operate: Washington Post

I can't wait for the debates. Bush's lies are a house of cards. I don't think his charm (it appeals to some I guess) can gloss over Iraq, al-Qaeda, the economy, and that pregnant women can no longer eat fish safely (and others too, when will people actually get angry about our environmental problems?).

Monday, August 23, 2004

Regime Not Changed

It turns out Bush and Cheney wanted to topple Venezuela's current government because of oil profits. I used to think they were all about sharing wealth with their friends, but I keep forgetting that oil is controlling nearly every policy they make (Iraq, energy, the environment...)

Why did Chavez become a Bush target?

Greg Palast offers us the truth again...

Friday, August 20, 2004

I should be balancing my checkbook...

Oh, and so should our government.

Yesterday Bush mentioned that Social Security was a problem although he didn't have the balls to say exactly what he'd do to solve it. No one should trust him to deal with it because he's too busy taking money away from Medicare's old people or tax payers and giving it to pharmeceutical groups, special interests (as many Senators do too) and Haliburton and Co.

I just don't get why the white and blue collar callers that listen to conservative radio hosts call in with their panties in a bunch over Kerry and Vietnam. They conveniently forget that Bush never went to war at all and neglect everything he's done to literally bankrupt our society. Nevermind his past hypocrisy as far as conservative family values are concerned (formerly pro-choice, used cocaine, drunk driving, questionable behavior among his daughters--can't wait to see Dr. Phil's fluff piece that I suspect won't mention those problems...) his financial values are seriously skewed.

Today, our troops are ready to mow down democratically inclined Islamic clerics in Iraq.

The CIA is researching a very politically charged "what if" Saddam had actually gained nuclear weaponry (One could say anything!! It's a crazy and useless conjecture! Are they going to say they saved us from WWIII--proved Nostradamus wrong?!).

The FBI is shaking down American peace protestors and asking corporations to spy on American workers.

Condoleza is giving speeches about winning the hearts and minds of terrorists, and George is back at the ranch "writing" his acceptance speech.

Meanwhile, the world (including us) has taken out 3/4 of al-Qaeda terrorists with arrests and death, but, more important, I heard an analyst on NPR saying today that each of those individuals has been replaced with a new recruit. So nothing has changed and Osama is still on the loose. How did this happen? Hmmm, what have the CIA and FBI and military been working on?

I can not believe Bush's people are making this election about Vietnam, and soon, the dark threat that Iraq might have been (had the rest of the world, and especially Israel, shut down in order for chaos to occur). Even without Iraq and the terrorists, he's been a global capitalist (as opposed to small or alternative business) and an economically elitist President (something that's never analyzed by the press or the majority of his supporters).

How ridiculously convenient is all of this mud fuss?

I'm fed up with Republican attacks and fake "truth." I wish they had the ability and character to play fair, be honest and to debate more important things. If they are trying to prove that Kerry's character is bad, I think there's nothing worse than the ruthless Republican "principle" that the ends always justifies the means.

Make no doubt about it, either, their "ends" is absolute power. Bush/Cheney has quite obviously shown that they don't like to share (contracts, tax breaks) or play well with others (allies).

I guess some people admire these qualities in leaders, but I think the history of corrupt leaders shows that those people are admiring something that is really bad for them. I almost said that these people are stupid, but that's wrong, and calling someone stupid is a lazy way of not naming the real problem.

I'm reflecting on stupidness because Bill O'Reilly said today on the radio that he thinks stupid people are more fun than intelligent people. He also said that he was a stupid kid. I wondered who it is that he considers stupid and why. I also wondered who might consider themselves to be stupid, since he saw himself that way as a child. I wondered if O'Reilly was really thinking that he was reaching out and identifying with his audience--something that Bush has done by dumbing down his speech.

Wow, I really think O'Reilly and Bush, and their comrades, think that their audiences are stupid. I sincerely hope that they are wrong about that, too.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Flight Suit

Soooo, let's put aside the Vietnam questions for a moment (I think it's more relevant who went and who didn't) but it turns out that George Bush trained to be a pilot and never served in that capacity...I find it amazing that he shows up in the Gulf in a flight suit in 2004. Did he mean that his military mission was accomplished? Hardly!! His "mission" was business school...

Bush's Lies


Of course, why would a born-again Republican President respect the separation between church and state??

The Hill

Yet there are so many other reasons not to vote for him...

Wednesday, August 18, 2004


So, we have American soldiers fighting Islamic clerics in Iraq.

We have FBI agents cooperating with local police in college towns all over the U.S.

And Britain, thank God, is finding and aprehending actual terrorists in London. I think they actually understand who our enemy is!!! If you can find a copy of the Atlantic Monthly there is an article that discusses al-Qaeda and uses translated primary sources (e-mails and journals) to help us better understand them so that we can FIGHT them.

In order: They hate Jews, they hate Muslim governments that cooperate with Israel or America, they hate the American government and lifestyle, and they hate Americans for supporting our government.

Our enemy is not left leaning college students.

Iraq continues to be a mistake. Why are we fighting those clerics for the Iraqi counsel? Our local and national police our rounding up college students.

John Kerry believes that our approach to terrorist activity should be more of a police action (say, like ENGLAND) rather than militaristic nation-building.

I dare say he would not be rounding up college protestors. Who would? Someone who is thinking about politics and an election.

I don't see how anyone can vote for Bush's approach to terrorism.

Absolute Power

I have this dim memory from years ago of someone criticizing Democrats for interefering in people's lives. I think it had to do with political correctness (which is simply an opinion that can bring about feelings of self-consciousness, responsibility or guilt) or perhaps taxes (money from one's wallet). I can't remember the specifics. But I will say this, no one interferes in people's freedoms like a conservative Republican vying for power:

I've just been reading about how Jeb Bush has police literally knocking on the doors of black voters in Florida in order to intimidate get-out-the-vote leaders and their neighbors. Scare tactics suppress voter turnout.

The FBI is questioning college students and the elderly who are part of peace movements in California, Colorado and Missouri. The Missouri college students were planning to protest at the political conventions but changed their minds since they were faced with being "criminally investigated" and were thrown before a grand jury. This is also the threat being used against black voters in Florida.

The lesson I take away from these incidents is that certain Republicans have NO SENSE of respect for life, liberty and the puruit of happiness in America. They are mindlessly, greedily interfering in our RIGHT to free speech, our RIGHT to vote, in addition to personal issues like being gay or being pregnant. And as for f--king with foreigners...illegal immigrants, prisoners at Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib...the Republicans treat foreigners of all kinds like inhuman animals. Is this what they have in mind for us?

They have shown us how they use absolute power.

These Republicans (and any other politician who has no respect for our liberties) must GO, they deserve to be voted out of our government.


Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Gay Missouri

I grew up in rural Missouri with a father (a protestant minister) who favored equal rights for gays. He was probably the only one who did in the town we lived in. He worked actively within the church conference to achieve equal status for gay ministers.

I was not as educated as my dad. In school, I knew one gay boy who was slightly younger than me. He was considered a freak and suffered cruel name calling. The one openly gay woman I knew was ostracized by the entire community, and I was afraid to go in the bathroom if she was in there. I remember writing to my boyfriend as late as my sophmore year in college and telling him I was "grossed out" by two men holding hands. I am ashamed to admit that I couldn't understand how anyone could be gay.

I had always been sympathetic to blacks, to Jews, to women, but it wasn't until I took a women and politics class from a brilliant and emotionally vulnerable lesbian professor in college, that I began to see gay and lesbian people as human beings, just like me.

It was 1988, and I was asked to stop searching for "why?" Although I have theories (for almost anything), acceptance does not ask "why?." It is absolutely insulting to ask a gay person why they are gay. I was at a party in the 90s when a doctor asked a gay friend what his childhood was like and when did he realize that he was gay? I imagined the doctor putting my friend on a psychologist's couch. It hit me as to why this is a very personal question that pecks at the core of a person's being, it is not party banter. What makes you a woman? A man? Some people wouldn't mind answering such a question, but we cannot assume that everyone will.

Yesterday, in 2004, Missouri became the first state to ban same sex marriages by writing exclusive language into their state constitution. It was a special and primary election. When I learned this, although I did expect it, I was deeply ashamed again.

It is time for marriage to cease being a federal or legal bond. Marriage in 2004 is starting to be legally reserved for straight people, the people who manage to barely maintain 1 out of 2 marriage. The threat to "traditional" marriage is not gays and lesbians, it is not Hollywood, it is not women's equality.

The threat to straight marriage is quite simply straight people's unprincipled behavior and emotional cluelessness. Believe me, I've been there, done that. Every unhappy marriage that I've observed or read about has had the hallmark problems listed below. I can only think of a handful, maybe four, marriages that don't fit this description--these problems are COMMON--MORE than 1 out of 2.

-lack of communication
-lack of understanding
-lack of respect
-mixed up priorities (such as money and work over family and friendships)
-opposing or misaligned values (trauma for kids)
-industrial/corporate lifestyle (debt, less time with loved ones)
-educational systems that don't teach how to deal with or prevent any of the above
-and more...

Work on those threats, Missouri. Make "marriage" the dominion of churches and any community organization that supports and nurtures families. Take government out of it. If you are straight, homosexuality has nothing to do with your marriage (unless you have gay kids) and it does have a part of the natural order of life.

Rape Politics

I've lived through too many high profile rape cases to find much emotion about them anymore. I don't make judgements on either the accused rapist or the alleged victim. I can't know what happened--only the jury can guess at that.

What makes me angry is the chatter that surrounds rape trials. I heard a conservative radio host talking about Kobe Bryant's case yesterday. It really didn't matter that it was Kobe Bryant's trial, he had more general things to say about how any rape victim should or shouldn't behave.

He said it wasn't reasonable for a victim of rape to have sex shortly afterward. He "justified" this claim by saying that he had come to understand that a rape victim would be too traumatized to have sex with anyone, even a boyfriend or husband, shortly after being raped. He also said that a rape victim shouldn't wear dirty underwear to the hospital for a rape examination. He thinks that a woman who would wear dirty underwear to the hospital clears any accused rapist.


Obviously, he has never been a rape victim, or even really thought about what it's like to be a sexually active woman.

I met a woman, let's call her Ann, who had never been raped because she never said no to a man, even when she didn't want to have sex.

I knew a woman, let's call her Betty, who was knocked down and dragged into an alley by a complete stranger who brutally beat and raped her.

These two factual anecdotes represent extremes of women's sexual choice, or anti-choice.

Most women who are raped fall between these two neatly illustrated extremes.

I am one of them. In the muddy experience of rape that I understand, sex and date rape are very close cousins, but they are distinctly separated by one clear thing: the word "No." When a woman's protest is ignored, and a man goes ahead and intimately violates her body and her wishes, no one can know how she'll react to that.

In my case, I was so frightened that I allowed the rapist to have sex with me later that night (hours after he'd ignored my protests "No!" and overpowered me during the rape). He wasn't admitting that he raped me and I was afraid of what else might happen to me if I lectured him on what he had done. Irrationally, I was afraid to leave while it was dark outside. I lived in a small, conservative town, so I never reported the rape to the police.

The conservative radio host that I heard yesterday isn't interested in the distinction between a rape and sex. To me, it makes sense that a rape victim would want to have sex with a man she cared about, or at least a man she would like to have sex with, soon after a rape. It isn't the wisest or safest thing to do, but it could seem to her a repair to the sense of loss of self-control that rape searingly manifests.

Gee, is it any wonder that a rape victim might do something that is not in her own best self-interest? Many women do things counter to their own self-interest in general in this patriarchal society, why would a rape situation make women stronger?

I call on all commentators to do rape victims a favor 1) Help us educate men 2) Don't tell us and the world that women should act rationally after we've been dominated and victimized--some of us are well aware of the fact that we couldn't.

Promote Choice

This is a very good thing to read about the politics and social need for equality for women, which INCLUDES abortion rights:

I wrote to Planned Parenthood about their T-shirt, I think they are in a bit of denial about how it expresses abortion. Yet, although I disagree with this item of expression, I support that organization full heartedly. Here is the letter I wrote on July 27th:

Dear Planned Parenthood,

I am pro-choice. I owe your organization a lot. You've helped me
throughout my teen and adult life. I am so saddened that you are marketing
a t-shirt that announces that the wearer has had an abortion.

I would like to know your rationale.

It makes Planned Parenthood's policy toward abortion reflect a casual
attitude of indifference to the pain and trauma--physical psychological and
spiritual--an abortion involves. It suggests a cynicism toward life, toward
religion, toward choice, toward women.

Please withdraw this t-shirt. Every year I consider organizations to make
charitable contributions toward. I cannot support organizations that appear
to treat the issue of abortion so callously.

Abortion is a necessary right and a key factor in women's health; it is not
a joke, a boast, or something to openly celebrate. There is no getting
around the fact that pregnancy involves a woman's body and health, just as
there is no getting around the fact that a human life comes to an end. It
is not something that people should feel ashamed of, yet women do feel grief
and sometimes shame.

We must confront opponents of abortion with an attitude of compassion for
women--not an attitude of unfeeling confrontation.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

On Holiday

This week I leave with my husband for a long, romantic and restful tropical honeymoon and I will try not to think about politics and I thank heaven that the Olympics will take Americans' minds off of the election for a little while.

The Democratic Convention was absolutely inspiring to me. I don't look forward to the Republican convention, I think it will anger me with its deceptions, but I hope to work on my ability to become angry quickly. My husband and I are going to put together a specific list about where our tax money goes, and how much it is. Why don't we all know this? It's our money, it's our government. Nobody in government wants us aware of these things.

Kerry is:

good for the environment
good for women
good for our economy (we are lucky he wants to deal with the financial mess that Bush has made for us--who do we tax to help these problems if not those making over $200 K?)
good for ending the war and for increasing national defense
good for schools
good for healthcare
good for building communities
good for gathering allies
good for manufacturing
good for a strong, smart military

Bush is:

good for Halliburton
good for evangelicals
good for polluters
good for the wealthiest Americans
good for Saudis
good for big oil
good for coal mining
good for loggers
good for HMOs
good for prescription drug companies
good for isolationists
good for exporting jobs
good for private companies who do so-so military contracting
good for healthcare for Iraqis
good for investigating and judging other people's and politician's private lives
good at hiding his own private life
good at screwing with voter's rights