Friday, October 29, 2004

Explosives in Iraq not important to Bush & Pentagon

No matter which line of story you believe (let me suggest you trust your own eyes here), it seems apparant to me that Bush and his civilian "warriors" just didn't care about securing explosives.

Just think, if you want a continuous war (because you will be reelected if you're a war president) such a negligent policy will certainly help the war continue.

Yes, I am saying that President Bush is willing to risk American lives to stay in power.

That is a telling difference between a man who was a young war protestor and man who was a young "pro-war" avoider. You know, Bush was adorably young and stupid.

So what's his excuse for being old, stupid and seemingly without a conscience for 1,100+ dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis (who were mostly women and children)?

Yes, I am going to raise hell if he cheats his way into a second term.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Vote for Kerry and reduce abortions!!!!

Finally, some logic and sense, Bush is not for a culture of life by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus, it occurred to me this morning how silly it is that creationists don't accept evolution. To me, G_d is fundamental to life; the essence of life, and my awe for it, is the force and forms of growth. In evolution the body changes, grows, develops, adapts. Why wouldn't G_d be centrally involved in that?!

Kerry says it best, he kicks ass!

With Chris Matthews, he can do it better.

Primary Sources -- Bush and his lying press whores

This is getting nasty--the missing explosives issue is not in the bag, but it definitely looks bad for Bush. He and his press whores are blatantly lying about it, saying with certainty that the weapons weren't there after the invasion when they know there is sparse but good evidence that the munitions were there after our troops.

They are also despicably saying that Kerry is now attacking the troops, he's not, he's attacking the commander in chief, and the irresponsible, cowardly commander and chief actually has crazy Guiliani blaming the troops for the error!!!! He says, Bush was prudent, the troops might have fucked up!!! The buck stops everywhere else but in the White House!!

Every Iraqi or foreign diplomat who knows anything about this says it happened after the invasion. So does Bush appointed David Kay!

The first group that went into Al QaQaa didn't search, the place had 100s of Iraqis shooting at them.

The second group saw munitions all around, and weren't there long enough to search the 1,000 buildings.

Clearly, at least some munitions were there after we went in.

None are there now.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Paula Zahn revealed -- CNN is not liberal

Watching CNN today Zahn let two things slip, the first was her resentment that Bruce Springsteen is campaigning for Kerry, "Yeah, we love his voice but some of us don't like it that he's campaigning for that man," she said as an unanticipated reaction to one of Kerry's spokesperson's being excited about the upcoming Sprinsteen/Kerry gig.

The second slip was not of her doing. She was interviewing an "undecided" astronaut (please!) who won't reveal the candidate that he's leaning toward. He did reveal this fact, Paul Zahn was a 1987 graduate of Stephens College (like the astronaut's wife).

Stephens College is a dixie style "finishing school" in Columbia, Missouri. Columbia is also home to one of Missouri's most respected public universities, UMC.

It was my perception growing up in Missouri that men liked to send women to Stephens who will not challenge their intellect, will always look pretty, and will know how to entertain their clients. As an adolescent I was once told that going to Stephens was all I needed to become a "classy lady."

As you might imagine, I've never had much respect for an institution that seemed solely defined as a lady-maker, but I had no idea that it also produces successful and biased journalist-lights. I'll have to reconsider my original assessment...

From their website:

"Being part of an academic tradition is very different from living a traditional life." I don't think they meant to suggest that the two are incompatible, doh...

I think blog this qualifies as blog trivia (have a I penned that expression?) :-)

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Nutrasweet probably causes cancer, definitely kills brains cells. Thank Rumsfeld.

I'm reading Fat Fallacy by Dr. Will Clower--he's a neuroscientist. It's a good follow-up to Dr. Weil's books about nutrition.

I've long been suspicious of artificial sweeteners (see Artificially Splendid) so this doesn't come as a surprise, but who's responsible for this unhealthy non-food is a shock...Donald Rumsfeld.

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) kills brain cells, particularly in the hypothalamus (which controls feeding behavior). More than half of FDA claims are aspartame related. It probably causes fibromyalgia. Most Neurologists firmly believe that it causes brain tumors, has in rats (the industry's monkey studies were fixed). When aspartame gets above 86 degrees (we are 97-98.6 degrees F) it turns into wood alchohol (free methanol) and formaldehyde (embalming fluid).

THIS IS THE CRAZY PART. In 1979, the FDA gave the thumbs down to aspartame's safety (because of brain tumors in lab rats). J.D. Searle Inc., reapplied for FDA approval the day after Reagan took office, 1981. Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of J.D.Searle, and White House Chief of Staff. Aurthur Hull Hayes overrode the FDA recommendations (Republican appointees have a habit of doing this) and approved Nutrasweet in 1983. Within 4 months he left the FDA and became a consultant for Searle's PR firm.

Can we have some accountablity and responsibility please?! Clearly, our media is owned by the corporations. No one, I mean NO ONE, should put their trust in government or corporations.

The Aspartame/NutraSweet fiasco by James S. Turner

Monday, October 25, 2004

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

The New York Times Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

I hear Sean Hannity today claiming that Bush [and by extension his people] makes us safer. Nevermind that his stupid approach to Iraq (maybe not designed by him, but approved and implemented by him) has probably caused thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi deaths due to incompetance.

al qaeda is running circles around us in Iraq--they are growing in numbers and could eventually reach us here. It's embarressing and very clearly the wrong direction in the fight on terror. Kerry's experience and knowledge, and his people, can stop this chaos.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The Four Freedoms

My favorite interpretation of Roosevelt's vision:

Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms

I saw these painting in person in New York after 9-11. I was so moved by "Freedom of Speech."

The Bush administration is a direct threat to this freedom, and keeps us distant from the rest...

O'Reilly's lawyer explains the extortion suit against Andrea Mackris


So O'Reilly says, "I was stupid."

And that guys understand what he means by that.

No, your were criminal.

You got caught acting illegally, and unethically.

"Stupid" is part of it, but not all of it.

He also says he's not a victim, but his lawyer contradicts that and describes him as "vulnerable," and in a position to be extorted. Poor Bill.

I guess everyone who's sued could claim that "they put themselves in a position to be extorted!" Ridiculous.

Bush has no signing ceremony for his pork bill

Bush has signed his corporate-love crap bill, $136 Billion

Mr. McCain

Mr. Duplicitous is in a tough spot with this interview

No, Kerry doesn't have a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism (true)

Both sides are equally bad with rhetoric (lie)

Yes, "we" have made many mistakes in Iraq, we make mistakes in every war (true)

but Bush is better qualified in "his ability to address the war on terror," (lie)

Bush doesn't pay enough to the troops, didn't recruit enough troops, overextended the guard and reserves, and has made lots of mistakes (true)

Things are good and bad in Iraq, we've made progress, elections (30% a lie)

We've achieved a dramatic change in Afghanistan (lie)

The draft won't happen (no way to judge that)

Doesn't know much about Condi's tour schedule, dodges whether it's appropriate and says she shouldn't "cross the line"

Interesting missing newspaper endorsements

I find it interesting which states newspapers haven't endorsed Bush at all:

Bush 0 Kerry 7

Bush 0 Kerry 3

I've been thinking that Missouri won't go for Kerry in my analysis (it's too heartbreaking to be dissapointed by my home state), but when I see that little symbol in the newspaper endorsements I start to consider the large university system there (it mostly exports...) who have probably had record registrations that aren't being polled. A Republican we spoke to last night quipped that this is the "cell phone generation!" Missouri also has lots of old people there who have a sense of history and are probably disappointed or pissed off at Bush. Then we have good voting in Missouri due a sense of sacredness at the polls (which used to be the case in Ohio, and I'm holding out that the loyal Ohio pollworkers that I knew from both parties will tell GOP disrupters to go to hell) to the relative lack of fraud that's happening there (thank you, Missouri!).

I now think Missouri, despite state polls, is going to go Kerry...that puts him at 313 by my count!!

Friday, October 22, 2004

Sexual Harrassment

I'm not saying O'Reilly's guilty, only a jury can decide that, but I expect if he settles for an unmentioned sum that she's got lots of evidence and witnesses on him. The Drudge Report is trying to suggest that her student loan and credit card debt are her motive, please. If that were the case we'd have rampant sexual harrassment cases, her debt's pretty damn average and to pretend it's not is misleading Americans who are yet clueless about the debt 20 - 40 somethings carry. It was the credit card loving 90s...

Once again I'm appauled at the coverage of this case. When isn't a woman's "motive" for charging a man questioned? It's so odd to question the victim; men are known to be far more aggressive and brutal than women (and are often proud of that) but the assumption is that all men are well behaved (even the likes of Mike Tyson, Woody Allen, and Bill O'Reilly!?!?) and women either make-up or bring on abuse themselves.

It becomes apparent that the press isn't giving us news. We don't learn anything about sexual harassment cases in America, the process, the statistics, the history, in short, THE FACTS, instead we get hearsay about the alleged victim and accused.

The press grossly abuses their privilege to use public airwaves, and to call themselves "news."

I've got to stop blogging and place an ad before the election is over...

Watching the 700 Club Spin

It's Christian Fox news light.

On reporting voter fraud, they say both parties are equally guilty, nevermind that there isn't a single report of Democrats ripping up Republican ballots (correct me if I'm wrong).

The 700 club says:

"The liberal media is trying to make us think our vote doesn't count."

Most disturbing, however, was this little jump in logic. It went something like this, from the blue-eyed, light haired, younger looking Pat Robertson clone:

"With the supreme court in Florida knocking down ten commandments in courthouses, and ten commandment issues in courts all over the nation, and judges finding the words "under God" unconstitutional, it is so important that we [Christians] vote. The constitution says nothing about stopping the expression of religion in the public square! It simply says that the government must not establish a religion. But we have a long American history of religion in the public square, we began as a Christian nation, and Christian expressions of faith should not be stopped.

Where did we get from religious expression to just Christian expression? Why couldn't he just continue to say religious expression? Because that's not what they want or mean, they mean CHRISTIAN nation, CHRISTIAN expression. Come on, they certainly do want to establish one national religion. This isn't about the expression of a mosaic of religious faith, which I fully support, they are only interested in those who have faith in Jesus.

Now blue-eyes is making a mesmerizing, meditation inducing appeal to let Jesus into your heart (direct) "...close your eyes, and pray along with me, and I promise, Jesus will hear, he'll answer, and you'll find joy."

Now there's an 800 number, packet's free. 1-800-759-0700 I wonder if they ask for money later...

Pat Robertson has produced an ad promoting his book called Courting Disaster and says 5 "activist" supreme court judges are trashing our constitution.

Judges are usually anti-activist (work from precedent), both conservative and liberal judges can make changes that are considered activist (new interpretation). When Bush got appointed president 5 to 4, the judgement was one of the most activist decisions on record.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Pat Robertson admires and endorses a destructive narcissist

In his CNN interview, the religious leader Pat Robertson described Bush on the eve of the invasion as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now."

Pat Robertson sees Bush blessed by G_d, but interestingly fails to use the word "ethical" with George Bush, which is how most people introduce that Christian quote by Mark Twain. It's like he's not talking about Bush, like G_d is working through Bush (and Bush keeps bungling G_d's work, oddly enough). Even Robertson can't square the mistakes, but then he's getting 1/2 a million of tax payer money from the Bush administration so it's not as if there may be a conflict of interest if he chooses not to support the President or anything like that...

Turns out Bush was a Christian without four aces (no WMD, no nuclear threat, not making a safer Middle East, no connection to 9-11) not even one.

That kind of baseless confidence, one based on thin air rather than substantive accomplishments, is typical of a behavior called DESTRUCTIVE NARCISSISM. If he wasn't doing it that day, he's certainly doing it NOW.

Why people are buying into his "confidence" is absolutely frightening, it's backed up by nothing!!! Just because someone appears confident and charming does not mean that they are truly a confident person, and it definitely doesn't guarantee a capable person.

Destructive narcissists usually have two sides--grandiose self-confidence, and devastating insecurities. And guess what? THEY NEVER ADMIT MISTAKES. It shows up best when a narcissist is challenged. He's boasting and confident one minute, then someone brings him down a little bit (because he can't help being a bluffing jackass) and instead of letting it wash over him, possibly considering it, or admitting he's wrong, he becomes desperate, a victim of someone's wrath, like "[Don't pick on me] It's hard!"

We totally saw this with Bush in the debates. For debate 1 he was devastated and insecure as Kerry attacked, for debates 2 and 3 he had been coached not to become devasted, so he maintained appearing grandiose and just ignored the attacks and the truth (yet he was seething mad, as opposed to Kerry's CONSISTENT confidence and composure). Kerry should get the confidence vote, not Bush!!!

We see how Bush treats people who differ with his preset opinions or hopes--he fires, retires or silences critics who even have his best interests at heart. He trusts few people, and denies the truth when it's hitting him in the face. He has demonstrated no empathy for soldier's funerals, their deaths, or Iraqi civilian deaths. Cheney "F-you with no apologies" is just the same. Karl Rove is right there with them, really DESTRUCTIVE. Taking out his political enemies like it's really a personal war. They are all incredibly secretive. They are classic destructive narcissists.

Chances are that Bush's wife feeds it in him, pumps him up, and rarely challenges him. What did he say in the debate that she taught him, to listen to her? Hmm. That doesn't sound like two-way communication to me. My husband would never say that! I would never say that about him because it seems so basic. Of course he listens to me, and I listen to him, if we don't we're being dismissive of each other and that's awful. Further more, we talk--a lot! He might say I've taught, or rather he learned to use "patience," or "understanding," (because I don't make it easy on him!) but not something as static and unempathetic as "listening." Listening, or hearing, is just the first step...connecting is a conversation. Women who are not connected to their husbands say, "if only he would listen to me." Ladies, he does, but you both need to do more than listen, you need to plug in to each other. Children listen to you, too, to EVERYTHING--they need more understanding, too. Empathy and understanding take far more observation and self-awareness than simply listening. I believe that Bush severly lacks this capacity. A photo-op hug doesn't do it all either, by the way.
nar·cis·sism (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm)n.
Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.

1. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

3. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits [healthy narcissism].

Why I feel good about voter registration fraud

At first, I was outraged by stories like this (in Nevada last time), and granted, I'm still furious that a company allegedly ripped up all their Democratic registration forms and hope that those people will be allowed to vote, but I was reflecting on the truth.

When my husband and I registered voters in CA and AZ, we wore Kerry T-shirts and buttons. We registered everyone, whether they were in "our" party or not. They knew where we stood on the election, we often didn't know where they stood. I know I registered a few Republicans. One even joked that he couldn't trust me to turn in his registration. I got quite testy and said that I was an ethical person and I would send it in. He knew I was, probably based on the fact that I was so open about being a Kerry supporter. I wasn't trying to be opportunistic or manipulative with my job. The folks below were, and that tells me that the Republican party is desparate.

I heard Newt Gingrich on the Sean Hannity radio show. He was saying that Kerry is lying about the draft, social security, and that they are using fear and racism/race-bating to get votes. Wow, its so amazing that he is labeling Kerry with exactly what Bush and the RNC is doing (Condi Rice has now been sent to swing states to give election speeches). I guess when Kerry tells the truth, he's lying in Bush's neocon world. That makes sense actually, the truth is a lie in a world where lies are sold as reality.

Campaign 2004: Voter registration workers cry foul
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
An ostensibly nonpartisan voter registration drive in Western Pennsylvania has triggered accusations that workers were cheated out of wages and given instructions to avoid adding anyone to the voter rolls who might support the Democratic presidential nominee...

"If they were a Kerry voter, we were just supposed to walk away," said Michael Twilla, of Meadville, who said he has been paid for only eight of 72 hours he worked. Twilla provided the Post-Gazette with a copy of the script he said he had been given. It instructs the canvassers to hand unregistered Bush supporters a clipboard with a registration form, and to advise them the canvassers will personally deliver the forms to the local courthouse. A lower portion of the form also advises the canvassers to ask undecided voters two questions: "Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro life?" and "Are you worried about the Democrats raising taxes?" If voters say they are pro-life, the form says, "Ask if they are registered to vote. If they are pro-choice, say thank you and walk away."

The form also tells canvassers, "If anyone asks who you are working for, it's 'Project America Vote.' "

Monday, October 18, 2004

Peace again Nov. 3 (if there's no recount)

One of the reasons I want Kerry to win is because he won't bate the right like Bush bates the left. Sure, there will be extremists (anti-choicers) who will want to hunt him down (they really need to let go of that misplaced responsibility toward pregnant women), as well as neo-cons thirsting for power, and far lefties protesting, protesting. But that's their right, most of the more tolerant country, the other 70%, will be at peace.

Ahhh. I see it on the horizon...let it be.

If things stay as they are, and there's very little fraud, I think Kerry will get just over 300 electoral votes.

And another Bush vote bites the dust

Republican Votes for Kerry (more to be posted here soon, they are below):

William G. Milliken, former Governor of Michigan

Fantasy Endorsements

Kerry has trumped Bush on endorsements, but I was irritated by the Chicago Tribune, even though it always endorses Republicans....

Dear Chicago Tribune Editors,

In your presidential endorsement I find a glossy analysis of Bush's poor presidency and errors about Kerry's judgement and plan to deal with terrorism and national security. I also think it’s odd that you and many talking heads treat the Cold War and the Gulf War as if they were preordained events that could only be won one way. Let’s stick with the present--Bush's touted Homeland Security is marginalized in Washington and has failed to make chemical plants and ports safe at home. Our presence in Iraq has killed 1,100 Americans, tens of thousands of mostly innocent Iraqis, and is a recruiting tool for terrorists, yet has been great for our military-industrial complex. Many in the world, and nearly 50% of Americans, see America acting like a blind bully. These situations make us less safe in the world and take away resources and troops from pursuing terrorists in other countries. Bush's mistakes in Iraq are the result of his inability to seek reality-based solutions. Bush retires, fires, or silences those who voice realistic analyses or provide non-ideological alternatives. He relies on faith, his gut, and Karl Rove's political machinations for the bulk of his decision making—if elected, he will give us more of the same. With such a fundamentally ungrounded and unprecedented approach to a presidency of reaction and revision, Bush falls short of your idealistic endorsement. How in the world do you think he'll correct the many errors you’ve listed when he doesn't even see them? The solutions to the problems he's created takes analysis and leadership that your own editorial admits Kerry can and will provide. Kerry and his strong admininstration will lead us in the terrorist fight with observation, a realistic view of cause and effect, statesmanship, and with a Clintonesque economy. Many Generals and Republicans have endorsed Kerry—but you described the strawman that Bush/Cheney/Rove have created. And like Bush’s presidency, your endorsement is based more on fantasy than reality.

And I didn't even mention the godless way he treats the environment...

Bush lies, Kerry tells the truth

It's a more than sad that Bush lies about how Kerry will deal terrorism, in his speeches, and in his ads, and the press just reports it unchallenged. Kerry should call him a liar, but he won't, because he's a statesman (the Bushies and "F-you" Cheney know that).

Bush does live in a faith-based fantasy world that is propped up with lies. How he gets away with this will hopefully influence press reporting if he gets elected (or appointed again).

Whereas, Kerry tells the truth about Bush's failed policies.

This situation is absolutely unfair, unjust, and frightening. It is chipping away at our freedoms and our Republic. As Orwell wrote, "When 2 + 2 = 4, then all else follows." Right now, Bush is making up more than numbers.

If people are relying on TV for the bulk of their information, this nation is in real trouble.

Looks like the flu problem will cause Bush problems with getting elderly and emergency health care worker votes.

Advice to unhappy couples (or clueless ones like I was)

Hello stranger,

The advice I have for you and your marriage requires that one or both of you surrender your ego. Much of what you're going through is probably echoing the relationships your parents had, and trying to fulfill missed nurturing from childhood. Admit these things to yourselves, nurture yourselves, and only expect love, affection, understanding and patience, but not repair, from your partner.

Love the truth.

Love yourself and each other even when you're sad, lonely, or in a bad mood. Let yourselves feel without blame, judgement, or assumptions. Recognize each other's emotions, give them the utmost respect, never dismiss them. Check in with each other often.

Admit your own shortcomings or hurts as soon as you become aware of them.

Admit what you want from life and with each other. If you share 1. wave length (friendship, family, politics, philosophy) and 2. practical needs (cleaning, furniture, condo or house, rent or buy) and 3. sex (frequency, similar desires, experimental level) you're great. If you have two out of three, you can make it! If you only have one, life won't get any easier for either of you.

With love from,

Divorced (we had #1 for a while, then he left), remarried (we could do slightly better on #2), and working on transcendence.

Fake perceptions and Faith

Are you an empiricist? Do you believe in the observation of cause and effect to get to the truth? Many in this country don't, and many of them support a similar thinking George W. Bush.

Reality they have created their own. Without a Doubt by Ron Suskind


In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush.

He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Politics, personal lives and children

The outrage on the right about Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney's lesbianism as blessed by G_d has been twisted by Limbaugh and co. as an outing of Mary by Kerry. Yet, it is she and her father who share that honor.

Randy Rhodes on makes a brilliant point, "You're conservative and you're upset about the personal becoming political? I've got two words for you

Bill Clinton."

Worried about children being dragged into the political fray?

Monica Lewinsky (24)
Chelsea Clinton (who got to hear about her father's sex life in public for a year)

Mary Cheney is the gay outreach coordinator for Coors. She is her father's campaign manager.
Hardly a private issue, hardly a child.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Why L.A. is on another planet

It rained today, the 16th day of October. I think it might have rained last in June. I've heard no one say it but my husband, but L.A. and a large swath of California is experiencing a serious drought.

I keep hearing our neighbors say (over and over):

"I can't believe it's raining."

That's because it's Saturday night and in this rainless world, raining once in a blue moon on a Saturday night is an "I can't believe it" bummer!

And raining here, my wise husband points out, doesn't even help the drought. It has to rain and especially snow up north...

I love him!

The Iraq war IS going nicely...for business


Bush pays the radical right--let's follow the money

Follow the Money
"After Planned Parenthood and two sex-education groups, SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) and Advocates for Youth, launched a privately funded "No New Money" campaign to oppose federal spending on abstinence education, all three groups received multiple federal audits.

"By my count, Bush has sent more than $7 million in abstinence dollars to such overtly Christian organizations, and he's sent another $6.1 million in grants--some as large as $800,000--to 'crisis pregnancy centers,' which counsel young women not to abort. "

Judges are waking up, a possible challenge to the Patriot Act

No wonder Bush hates judges, oh right, just "activist" judges. The very act of being a judge is anti-activist--you make a decision based on what's already been decided. Mr. President, it's called PRECEDENT. Protestors get a win...

Liberal big spender is a big Republican MYTH

I'm not just going to say that liberals aren't the biggest spenders, I'm showing you the numbers: Here's a chart--the last article below is a more thorough in analysis. Bush people are pulling the wool over fiscal conservative's eyes. Yes, defense spending is up, but non-defense domestic spending under Bush is up almost as much!

4 out of 5 presidential domestic spendthrifts have been Republicans.
Big Spenders (1997 article)

These are fascinating articles that blow the stereotype of liberal "spenders" to pieces, as in both Reagan and Carter were low spenders in the last century.

Parental notification, abortion and slavery

Do you support the president's expensive pharmaceutical benefiting Medicare bill? We didn't, Kerry didn't. Bush bragged about it today in his weekly address.

He also mentioned parental notification laws. I was surprised how that pissed me off, but the more I learn about parenthood, the clearer I see the child as an individual. I strongly believe that young women who become pregnant and who are estranged from their parents should not be required to tell their parents if they get an abortion.

First, a young woman who becomes pregnant may not have been nurtured in a healthy way by the parents to begin with, and if she's not inclined to tell them her situation it is most likely because of self-protection (she will be thrown out, shamed, abused, punished, etc.). It must be really bad, because even girls in such a situation end up telling their parents (I would have). If the relationship is so unplugged that the girl remains mum, the parents have already given up responsibility for that girl, and she probably perceives them as trying to control her. On the other hand, if it's safe for her, she'll tell them!

I can't stand how people can treat children like property (we used to treat adult women and slaves like that) and this is such a blatant example of treating a young woman's body as if it is not her own, it is instead her parents, and extending that ownership to the next generation, her unborn child. I could not imagine a more fundamental disrespect for an individual's privacy. What, children don't have a right to privacy (I'm going to look into this)? No young man would stand for it if he could get pregnant.

Wow, I just used slavery as analogy for the unhealthy attitutude of ownership of children by parents. It occurs to me that "pro-before-lifers" use slavery as an analogy for abortion. I never "got" the analogy except that slavery has been outlawed so now, they argue, so should abortion be outlawed. One could also say that slave owners abused slaves and "mothers" abuse an aborted fetus. It still didn't work for me as a clear analogy, after all, the woman isn't using the fetus for labor or anything. However, it does work as a better analogy with the anti-stem cell arguments (using fetuses to treat disease). It does trouble me, but not if we're using fetuses that are going to be destroyed anyway. The fertility clinic world is such a weird and oogey thing to me...

The clearest analogy for slavery is the ownership of an individual by another individual (or institution). To make abortion illegal gives the state ownership of the pregnant woman and her body, just as the slave owner had ownership of the slave's body and health, just as the state is on record for enforcing sterilization on hospitalized, mentally disabled, and poor women.

So I'll say it, outlawing abortion makes pregnant women slaves to the government. It's an issue of ownership and there's no way around that.

This is the first time that I've seen it so clearly, but abortion rights are absolutely part of the right to privacy--anyone who doesn't believe that needs to make a serious assessment of their attitude toward woman's self determination.

"W"-is-for-women-Bush doesn't believe this. He's for a culture of life though...WHAT AMERICAN ISN'T?

Everybody would love to see a world where abortions were never needed. How about relationship classes, after shool programs, and birth control in schools W? Yeah, right, life through rose colored glasses...

Thursday, October 14, 2004

More faux outrage

"Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she told a crowd of 800 debate-watchers in a Pittsburgh suburb. "Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick." Lynn Cheney

Exactly what did Kerry do wrong by using Mary Cheney as an example of being born gay and blessed by G_d? Granted, I wish he'd used a relative from his own turf just to save him from this ridiculous attack, but in principle, it really shouldn't matter WHO is gay.

"You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, and I am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father," Dick Cheney said.

Wow, Kerry said Mary Cheney is gay by birth, oh so shocking to who exactly? Why is this awful exactly?!?! Are you embarressed, ashamed, shy, was he wrong and it was a choice and not birth for her? Please name what is so awful about what Kerry did!!! The suspense is killing me!

This is what Mr. Dick Cheney, White House chief of staff, gave as campaign advice to associates in 1976:

"Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose."*

Now there's a a man (and wife) who will use anything to say that Kerry is a bad man! More hypocritical projection...I can't stand it!!

*Dean, John W., Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, Little, Brown and Company, NY, 2004, p. 178.

Now, this is judgemental, but I think quite on target:

"She's [Lynne Cheney] overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response," Mrs. Edwards told ABC News Radio.

I'm sure Fox just loves this tit for tat spat.

50% of Americans don't support Bush the liberal bashing bully, and that matters

I can't begin to tell you how insulted I feel when the president dismisses liberalism as something wrong. It's shaming, something I believe that no one should ever do to someone who has a different opinion based on good principles or innocent emotion. It's bad enough when radio DJs and TV talking heads treat it like a disease, but today I heard the president attacking his opponent just because he is a liberal, as if that was enough to discredit him (and me)--nevermind progressive American history. People in the audience laughed and smirked, sharing in the president's ridicule. To me, he's a bully--I would never call Bush a uniter (or a conservative for that matter). Neither would I ridicule or laugh or dismiss someone for just being a conservative, and I expect the same respect from my peers as well as my president. It matters that 50% of the population doesn't feel like he's their president, but he doesn't seem to think so.

A Christian Republican refuses to re-elect Bush.

We, the despised, demonized, hated liberals (making us the enemy could not be more unAmerican), have long known that Bush was not a true conservative and has questionable Christian principles. We're too nice to point it out all the time (well, I'm not that nice).

Here it is in print A Republican Declares His Independence
by Robert L. Black

Why the Iraq war is out of proportion.

The 9/11 terrorists with no link to Iraq killed Americans with box cutters and airplanes, not WMD.

This is why police actions will work, and are working, too bad we don't have more resources devoted to crime fighting.

Asexuality exists! 1 in 100!!

I knew it! This may explain my "straight" attractive female friend who never had nor wanted sex and was enormously attracted to that strange seemingly asexual Michael Stipe.

Bush's high educational standards

Last night in the debate Bush made the argument that setting high standards is good for students. Sounds good, yet during the same 90 minutes he joked that his wife spoke better English than he did. Excuse me, but shouldn't the president speak great English? Shouldn't the president represent high standards?

Leadership comes from the top...except in Bush world. I guess he's got an "English man" or wife, just like he has a "Budget man." That's deligation...

Gay shaming

Good Morning Mr. Marshall,

I was so angry after the debate that everyone on MSNBC was acting like Mary Cheney's homosexuality was something to be ashamed of! I was screaming, "There's nothing wrong with being gay!!" I waited, unappeased, for Ron Reagan to speak up, but he was clearly silenced by the judgmental panelists flanking him.

I was also glad to see that you noticed the childish podium banging that Bush did.

Thank you so much!

Kerry won

This debate editorial does a good job of summing up why the debate revealed how Bush is a cheerleader for the wealthiest among us, as well as the NRA, and Kerry has what it takes to strengthen the middle class. Pell grants? More people have them because more people are POOR. Kerry won.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

800 older children looking for adoption in L.A.

I hope to be in a position someday to permanently adopt an older child (or two!). Dr. Phil had 3 children (Dr Phil See: Meet Dion, Ashley and Luis, three of these special children) on his show today from L.A. who are seeking homes. I would have adopted them all had I an estate and lots of cash! The girl just broke my heart, so strong, so vibrant. These children are already established in schools and activities, they just need loving, understanding and supportive parents.


Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Sinclair and the war - too close for comfort.

Listening to Mike Malloy's air america radio show again, turns out Sinclair Broadcasting is making money on the war. No wonder they are doing everything they can to keep Bush in office--media consolidation, war profits--you can feel the love.

It always makes sense to follow the money. Jadoo, friend to Enron, is a subsidiary of Sinclair and has benefited greatly from the "war on terrorism"....

"It didn't take long for Jadoo to attract interest from some major players. Among them was Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns 62 local news stations in the U.S.; it was the lead investor in a $5 million round of financing last year. But Jadoo's biggest coup came after President George W. Bush touted hydrogen as an alternative to foreign oil in his State of the Union speech last January. Jadoo, which had just released its first product—a long-lasting battery for the surveillance industry—was one of 22 fuel-cell companies invited to Washington to make a presentation to the White House...",15114,534931,00.html

Monday, October 11, 2004

Who's playing politics?!

I'm confused, Bush criticizes Kerry for changing his mind about the Iraq war (who hasn't?) because of POLITICS (which is crap, Kerry is not and has not been opposed to the war, he is opposed to how Bush is fighting it in REALITY), and then Bush decides to delay fighting the war in Iraq because of politics!!! This delay is outrageous!

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive." See link above for L.A. Times article.

Bush, a dry drunk who thinks G_d speaks to him?

My volunteer at work is a recovered alcoholic. She has called Bush a "dry drunk" several times and I've never questioned her about what she meant. I heard the author of Bush's Lies in State (an artist distracted from his usual subjects by current politics) Malachy McCourt on explaining it:

If one doesn't accept the emotional and spiritual impact of the disease of alcholism, then you start taking the hurt that you are avoiding feeling out on other people. Say, Iraqis?

How in the hell does he think G_d is telling him what to do? Who believes this? That makes 50% of us a frigging cult!

In Israel, Bush is believed to have said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am etermined to solve the problem in the Middle ast. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Bush's God

Faith, etc.

Hello. If you have had a rough childhood or want to be a relationship builder or a better parent, this is for you: It is the Instititue for Professional Parenting (Los Angeles).

My husband and I just finished 8 weeks of learning about the importance of cause and effect on emotional and psychological issues. The theory is universal in its significance. For instance, shushing a baby teaches a baby not to express emotion (believe it or not, this is a bad idea). We still need to absorb all we've seen and heard, and we will take the class again (after 4 times one becomes a master parent, after all).

I was just wondering whether the idea of faith parenting and faith partnering (trust in others to do the right/smart/good thing) while maintaining consistent, minimal but currencied discipline, applies to relationships between countries. I think it does! This approach definitely counters the idea of a preemtive war--a preemtive war is like punishing your kid before they do something wrong, then, guess what, they start to do it wrong.

If Iraq was a kid...

Israel did the right thing. When they knew Iraq had nuclear weapons, they struck to remove them, but didn't have war plans.

The U.S., on the other hand, began a war without any proof or plan for peace and we are still saying that we have made no mistakes. Again, that is NARCISSISM. A dangerous fantasy that relies on power, not intellect.

BTW, Sean Hannity appears to be insane. He keeps saying that Kerry misunderstands terrorism and would be a dangerous president. Who is Sean Hannity? A foreign relations expert, an al Qaeda specialist, a rocket scientist? No, he's a PARTISAN JOURNALIST.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

I had a feeling this could happen...wired Bush

From Salon:

"Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer."

There's a pattern of this behavior, his campaign people ask "What's your frequency?"

Bush wants who's vote?

"And the president was utterly incoherent when asked about whom he might name to the Supreme Court in a second term. His comment about how he didn't want to offend any judges because he wanted "them all voting for me" was a joke - but an unfortunate one, given the fact that the president owes his job to a Supreme Court vote. "

New York Times Op Ed

Iowa speaks, ahhh

"Either way, the invasion will go down as one of the worst foreign-policy blunders in American history. It does not diminish the sacrifices of America's magnificent soldiers, nor does it deny that Saddam was a brutal thug, to recognize that the security of the United States was not enhanced by the invasion of Iraq. It is a tragedy that compounds every day because each day it looks increasingly less likely that the Middle East will end up being a better place in the aftermath."

Read more:

A steward of the land?

Bush displayed the ultimate hypocrisy in last night's debate, he patted himself on the back for bing a "steward of the land." I almost threw up.

From an Idaho resident that voted for Bush in 2000 thinking that he was a "friend" to sportsmen now says:

"Please stop abusing my land, my wildlife, my habitat and my clean water and enable the generations to come to enjoy this wilderness.

"Please become a better steward of our land."

The Oakland Press

Crimes against nature

NOW with Bill Moyers from 2002, Troubled Waters

What are you a whore to?

I have begun to ask outloud of talking heads, "Who are you a whore to?"

I'm so tired of being disappointed by media people that I used to respect. Talking heads used to tell the truth based on principles of truth, fairness, and reality, even when their subjective biases came into play on issues that were open to interpretation.

Now, many talking heads have morphed into people who are arguing untruths in order to keep their corporate jobs, or because they have bought into an ideology that always puts power above ethical principles. I was struck by this when I heard Bill Kristol on Fox News incorrectly say something like, "Edwards didn't say anything about Kerry's congressional record!" after the debate with Cheney. When he was immediately told that he wasn't telling the truth he took narcissistic offense at the accusation rather than admitting something as simple as, "Okay, I was mistakenly generalizing, but in fact, Edwards wasn't convincing..."

It may sound harsh to call someone a whore, but we can all be whores. I think it's fine if you're a whore to your family, a whore to the environment, a whore to your lover, it's all a matter (as Bush might say) of who you love. Bush, for instance, is a whore to both money and power. Like a whore gives up sexual choice for money, we can give up clean air for corporate wealth, or a beautiful body for oral gratification, or more positively, we give up a career for family, or a big house for no debt. One can be a whore for a positive thing or a negative thing. It all depends on our basic principles and priorities--but whoring comes into play when you give up or compromise one thing for another thing. It's more than setting priorities, it's a specific exchange of one thing or idea for another thing or idea.

So, I ask myself, is that talking head giving up the truth for power or money?

Granted, most of the people in the media are intrinsically whores to fame/status (thereby sacrificing privacy and/or family), no biggie, but these people used to be far more concerned about the truth and ethical principles in government than towing the party line (with the exception of Coulter).

I'm interested in what it is that can cause a person to compromise the truth, the most compromising whoredom (in this case: Bush's presidency is a disaster) for money (financial reward) or power (the ends justifies the means).

Bill Kristol: power
Ann Coulter (never liked her): power
Morton Kondrake: money
John McCain: power
Rudy Giuliani: power
Arnold Schwarzenegger: power

Note: I differentiate a whore to money from a whore to power if the individual demonstrates any dissention from the ideology of power (Kondracke did this after debate 2). McCain is a dissenter, but his endorsement of Bush's presidency and his "war on terror" overwhelmingly counters his dissent, and he can only redeem himself from being a whore to power if he endorses Kerry before Nov. 2 (plausible). Schwarzenegger is willing to dissent from business interests when it comes to the environment and ill children, but not for consumers in general.

I'm doing this because of my fundamental belief that those who support Bush's presidency are defying truthful rationality and reality. I've decided that the only people who can support Bush without compromising the basic principle of truth would have questionable principles like these:

This person believes that the wealthy should be rewarded more than the poor, so rich people and global corporations benefit from government more than middle class workers, overtime workers, and small businesses; he believes that moral beliefs should be legislated, as in no birth control or abortion should be legal; she is a supporter of debt, so thinks large deficits and loans are wonderful; he believes in over spending, so taxes should be cut while spending is dramatically raised; she believes that every man is an "island", and so is the U.S. when she isolates herself to fight terrorism virtually alone; he believes in the importance of greed and bribery, so our political system is working just fine as it is, the money, the corporate monopolies, the press, and the lobbyists; she believes that man has unchecked dominion over the animals and the earth, so polluting and environmental wreckage is par for the course. A person who had such principles would be mean and strange, but I guess such a person might exist.

Need to send a message for the Environment?

E-mail address to stop new road building:

Dear President Bush,

I oppose new road building in National Parks. You have left a sad legacy for generations with your disregard for the environment and our precious National Parks. You have let greedy corporations create ulcers in the earth of our western states that poison wildlife and humans. They are a blight for the eyes, ears, and for taste and smell. You don't give the animals a chance because you give the corporations special exceptions over and over. You are ignoring legal rules. When will you answer for these grossly irresponsible policies?

See my post below for more information:
Bush's race to pollute our nation's natural habitats has been established

Bush's hometown newspaper endorses Kerry!!

The Texas Iconoclast knows what's really right: "...Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy."

Then check out the unprecedented shake down that happened to the paper: Threats and intimidation.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Confidence comes with narcissism

I'm still amazed that Cheney made those boldfaced lies in the debate in front of G_d and the world. It's embaressing to intelligent conservatives. It also illustrates the power a narcissist believes he has, to claim the world is flat when it is round and not expect to be challenged on it.

If America elects Bush/Cheney after they have so publicly and painfully revealed their levels of deceit, America is asking for fascism.

If anyone can find a link to the congressional representative who was debating the draft on the House floor today, please let me know! He outlined many of Bush's lies and said "how can we possibly trust what they tell us about the draft?"

Good question. How can anyone trust them?

The Bush Crime Family:

1.Voter fraud and intimidation in Florida 2000, 2004

2. Allowing illegal roads and gas/oil mining in Wyoming...

3. I'll find more...

Cheney vs. Edwards on the battlefield

"Cheney got a bit hotter when he said that since Kerry and Edwards couldn't stand up to Howard Dean and stick to their votes to authorize war, how could they stand up to al Qaeda? Other pundits have already declared this the "killer quote." But it didn't really shiver my timbers. " Edwards shoots and scores.

This is such a stupid line for Cheney. I've heard conservatives saying that Edwards couldn't stand up to Cheney, so how can he stand up to our enemy? This obscures the fact that in Edwards' mind, Cheney is not the enemy! Howard Dean is not the enemy! It shows how uncivilized and divided we've become. The metaphor doesn't hold. It was an abstract debate, not a physical war, and Edwards was polite and civil, Cheney was rude and emotionally numb. Despite the neocon rhetoric, Edwards did win the debate. And to extend the neocon's erroneous metaphor, let's see Edwards and Cheney on an actual battle field and we'll see who prevails.

No one has remarked on Cheney's inability to look Edwards in the eyes when he dissed him. That dog won't hunt because that's the technique of a snake that is used to hiding under his handlers' rocks.

We have learned by our absolute mistakes?

In a twisted, self-serving logic, the GOP and its constituents are now arguing that the Iraq war was intelligence gathering (nevermind that the inspectors had been right all along and this info cost us over 1,000 soldiers). Joshua Marshall cites the Washington Post. So, we didn't go into Iraq to destroy WMD, we went in to find out if he had WMD, which we now know, SUCCESS!

Bull Shit.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Homeland Security needs much help, and oh the Pentagon's corrupt.

Here's the real story about Homeland Security, the Fed's poor stepchild.

We have a whistle blower, G_d bless her. Where is the integrity in government I long for?

Bush's race to pollute our nation's natural habitats has been established

Okay, to be fair, Bush isn't the one polluting, he's just opening the flood gates for his corporate friends to do it. Actually, Dick Cheney did most of the arranging, the charmer. Cheney, demonstrating he has no care for the natural world and America's natural resources, has presided over toxic blights in our western states. See the damage here. I have not sought out the environmental damage they have been doing, wishing to remain ignorant, and this is why: it makes me physically ill to see and think about the death and suffering that we cause animals because of human greed. I can't ignore it any longer.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Another Conservative for Kerry

Thanks to Josh Marshall for this story. I think this is the most convincing argument I've heard against electing Bush, yet.

Billionaire Texas oilmen and nuclear waste dumpers love Bush!

Millions more go to the Swift Boat character assasinators playing on the shame of Vietnam from those who expect to make millions off of another Bush administration. Wow, they must get giddy thinking of what they can do with a 2nd term president that loves to generously pay back his wealthy supporters!

New Swift Boat ads supported by the oil and nuclear waste industries...

Double Speak!

Cheney completely lied about Iraq! He, and everything he says, is absolutely unbelievable.

CHENEY TONIGHT: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

Saturday, October 02, 2004

The Bush Crime Family

There's a commentator on that continually refers to the Bush family this way. It makes me cringe because so many people will dismiss it as paranoia, but then when you look at Florida and the disgraceful voting fraud that happened there in 2000, and how it's about to happen again, and Jeb Bush is the frigging governor, the man in charge, the brother of the president, it's hard not to say, yeah, indeed they are a crime family. Voter fraud is the most disgusting crime that can occur to a "leading democracy."

Just look at that dirty light on the hill--we're on top of King George's mountain of hypocrisy looking down on the valley of chaos.

It's a disgusting, family affair, and once again, the mainstream press is silent. CBS has fake documents about Vietnam? Whatever. A much more newsworthy report from Jimmy Carter: Florida

Friday, October 01, 2004

Why hitch your wagon to Dick Morris?

Saw Dick on the "can you believe the spin? Mine's not spin..." O'Reilly Factor. He said that Kerry won the debate with style, not substance, and that Bush's substance is all right while Kerry's plan for the war on terrorism is all wrong. So I guess when he was working for Clinton, a man who actually pursued Osama, he was not for the Democratic war on terror?


Since when did Dick Morris become a neo-con? If he always has been (it does fit him) no wonder Clinton fell to the moral right when he stupidly had Dick as a right-hand man. If he's just a shill for whoever is in the WH, why listen to him? That makes him a whore for power--useless.


A changed mind? Reading the debate faces

I just watched's video of Bush looking goofy and angry at the debate. Thing is, he always looks that way to me. My conservative Republican friend who I mentioned below has changed her mind about Bush and is likely to vote for Kerry. She trusted Bush, and now she doesn't, and she was embarressed by him, she wrote:

Your guy definitely won last night. Bush was embarrassing. I'm left in a quandary. Wanting to support my team (Republicans), but feeling the other guy is more stately.
Kerry scares me - he's a liberal [funny, many liberals find him too hawkish and conservative]. I'm not a social conservative, but definitely a fiscal one. I work for the government now (my county job). I see WASTE. I see gov't programs galore where people sit around and don't do much of anything. Then I envision it at the federal level and realize much of our
government spending is welfare - lots of jobs that could be done by much fewer
So, it may be that I vote for Kerry and rely on a Republican Congress to keep
some fiscal sense.[she's clearly not aware of the Republican Congress we have today] I don't know. Bush just looked like his own caricature. [Her husand] and I were both making fun of him! I wanted to go pull my sign out of my yard.

It's extraordinary to me that people need to have a contrast (in this case, Kerry's statesmanship) to see the truth. It's like we can't read people or see who they really are until we see the opposite right next to them. That's sad. I figured if people hadn't figured it out by now, they never would, I was unmoved by Bush's reactions because he has always looked that goofy and not-in-charge to me. I don't get it.

Believe me, I'm happy the contrast is working, but wow, people really have been asleep.

Funny, I think this country is absolutely ready for Kerry's solemn and serious demeanor and leadership. Clinton is so pre-9/11. Iowa knew that.

Kerry's against nuclear proliferation. Hope not fear! Peace, peace, peace!