t r u t h o u t - UN Predicts 9.1 Billion People on Earth by 2050
Think our Bush/conservative anti-family-planning policies abroad are good for us in the long run? It's amazing what a huge effect our policies and money have in the world.
I believe in having an attitude of abundance for all who are born--and that's easier in the U.S., but that certainly doesn't always hold--even here, and especially in resource-poor Africa, India and relatively rich China.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
t r u t h o u t - Edward Wasserman | 'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
Fascinating story. Context IS everything which is exactly why Republicans shun refering to it (they can control perceptions easier without it). [The quote in here from a psychologist but is actually an unattributed story from the bible, I Samuel I! It is when Hannah is admonished for being drunk because her lips are moving inexplicably, and she has to explain that she was actually praying silently, not drunk.]
Fascinating story. Context IS everything which is exactly why Republicans shun refering to it (they can control perceptions easier without it). [The quote in here from a psychologist but is actually an unattributed story from the bible, I Samuel I! It is when Hannah is admonished for being drunk because her lips are moving inexplicably, and she has to explain that she was actually praying silently, not drunk.]
Hannity "debates" a 21-year old Harvard student
Yesterday I was listening to the radio when I heard Sean Hannity domineering a young woman who sounded like she had just become conscious of the effects of male domination in universities. You know the Summers story, a socially-challenged scientist suggests that genetic differences between men and women account for low numbers of women in science. It's not the concept alone that matters to concerned women; it's the effects of such a position in the actions of the institution that this man represents. Mainly, Harvard has a lot of trouble tenuring women. Summers is the premier spokesperson and a key symbol for Harvard and here he is suggesting that the paucity of women in science is caused by our genetic make-up. Could this also be the explanation for women not getting tenure as easily as men?
Summers comments might suggest that he views our lack of representation in general as our own fault and there is nothing we can do about it!
Critics of Summers are saying that women deserve more consideration than this--we need both representation and respect in situations when we CANNOT represent ourselves. In the context of a world where very few men take responsibility for solving problems that particularly effect women (rape, breast cancer, and birth control, where's "the pill" for men? Viagra?) Summers' callous comment is a slap in the face.
But what did Hannity want to know? He wanted to know what innate differences the Harvard student found between men and women. He had already gotten the Harvard woman to admit that there are too many differences between men and women to catalog, but the only remaining question that Hannity had for her was, "Name a couple of innate differences?" he kept asking her, "It's a simple question...you're a smart girl...why won't you answer my question?" She kept trying to hammer that he was controlling the discourse and she kept talking about the systemic problems for women at Harvard; he kept cutting her microphone. And of course, he was gleeful that liberals appeared to be censoring speech. I never heard him address any of her points. [Note to those who debate reactionary conservatives--ask them questions, too, like, "Why don't you seem concerned about how this might be affecting women's tenure processes?" Give them some responsibility for creating solutions--they hate that.]
Hannity's actions were a total illustration of exactly what some men WON'T do to extend a hand to help solve women's concerns.
No listening, no empathy, no understanding, and no respect.
Why does Fox continue to pay this reactionary toadstool?
Summers comments might suggest that he views our lack of representation in general as our own fault and there is nothing we can do about it!
Critics of Summers are saying that women deserve more consideration than this--we need both representation and respect in situations when we CANNOT represent ourselves. In the context of a world where very few men take responsibility for solving problems that particularly effect women (rape, breast cancer, and birth control, where's "the pill" for men? Viagra?) Summers' callous comment is a slap in the face.
But what did Hannity want to know? He wanted to know what innate differences the Harvard student found between men and women. He had already gotten the Harvard woman to admit that there are too many differences between men and women to catalog, but the only remaining question that Hannity had for her was, "Name a couple of innate differences?" he kept asking her, "It's a simple question...you're a smart girl...why won't you answer my question?" She kept trying to hammer that he was controlling the discourse and she kept talking about the systemic problems for women at Harvard; he kept cutting her microphone. And of course, he was gleeful that liberals appeared to be censoring speech. I never heard him address any of her points. [Note to those who debate reactionary conservatives--ask them questions, too, like, "Why don't you seem concerned about how this might be affecting women's tenure processes?" Give them some responsibility for creating solutions--they hate that.]
Hannity's actions were a total illustration of exactly what some men WON'T do to extend a hand to help solve women's concerns.
No listening, no empathy, no understanding, and no respect.
Why does Fox continue to pay this reactionary toadstool?
Putin Loses His Smile after Lecture from Bush on Democracy
t r u t h o u t - Putin Loses His Smile after Lecture from Bush on Democracy
There are certain principles of communication that destructive narcissists consistently ignore. One of them is giving unwanted advice. They will never understand that modeling a behavior actually brings about respect, admiration, and copying. One can even speak from their own experience or appreciation without implying that the other person follow suit--but for Bush to reveal that he lectured Putin about what a Democracy means only leads Putin to feel public humilation. No wonder at least one of his kids are a defiant brat. This clueless narcissist rules our nation every day.
There are certain principles of communication that destructive narcissists consistently ignore. One of them is giving unwanted advice. They will never understand that modeling a behavior actually brings about respect, admiration, and copying. One can even speak from their own experience or appreciation without implying that the other person follow suit--but for Bush to reveal that he lectured Putin about what a Democracy means only leads Putin to feel public humilation. No wonder at least one of his kids are a defiant brat. This clueless narcissist rules our nation every day.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
t r u t h o u t - Jesse Jackson | The Princely Paradox of Malcolm X
Malcolm X, a man who eventually found dignity even though his family suffered from extreme racial hatred and violence.
[he began to advocate self-help and peace, and then he was assassinated]
t r u t h o u t - Jesse Jackson | The Princely Paradox of Malcolm X
[he began to advocate self-help and peace, and then he was assassinated]
t r u t h o u t - Jesse Jackson | The Princely Paradox of Malcolm X
MSNBC - Thompson�s suicide not an impulse, friend says
MSNBC - Thompson�s suicide not an impulse, friend says
This is emotional bizarro-land. I always took a dislike to Hunter S. Thompson, now I realize what an abstract view he had of life. What a strange and seemingly unempathetic way to die with your family around you.
This is emotional bizarro-land. I always took a dislike to Hunter S. Thompson, now I realize what an abstract view he had of life. What a strange and seemingly unempathetic way to die with your family around you.
Karl Rove might be gay and that's how he sleeps at night
A few days ago I blogged that Karl Rove might be gay and it never appeared on my published blog!! It mysteriously disappeared! Now Bill Maher and Robin Williams are implying it and I can't prove that I called it first )-: Except my husband can vouch for me!
I was saying that it makes sense to me because oppressed people can lash out at their oppressors quite easily--today my wonderful volunteer Hilda said it's called something like "aggressor association" in psychological terms. So women who have been abused target men; minorities that have been tortured choose torture for their enemies; etc.
So if Karl Rove is gay, and most Americans hate or fear gays, it makes sense that he would SCREW Americans with his draconian policies and would still be able to sleep at night. Perhaps he feels justified in what he is doing because hateful, biggoted Americans are getting what they deserve. He's morally wrong, but it probably feels right.
That's my theory about Karl Rove and his conservative, gay prostitute helpers.
[If you're reading this the censors lost!]
Peace.
I was saying that it makes sense to me because oppressed people can lash out at their oppressors quite easily--today my wonderful volunteer Hilda said it's called something like "aggressor association" in psychological terms. So women who have been abused target men; minorities that have been tortured choose torture for their enemies; etc.
So if Karl Rove is gay, and most Americans hate or fear gays, it makes sense that he would SCREW Americans with his draconian policies and would still be able to sleep at night. Perhaps he feels justified in what he is doing because hateful, biggoted Americans are getting what they deserve. He's morally wrong, but it probably feels right.
That's my theory about Karl Rove and his conservative, gay prostitute helpers.
[If you're reading this the censors lost!]
Peace.
Kansas Probing Women Who Had Abortions
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Kansas Probing Women Who Had Abortions
This is infuriating--conservatives have no idea what they are doing. This guy wants to hunt down girls and women who have had abortions by invading their medical records. He thinks that he can prevent underage sexual activity by doing this. The effect of what he is doing will prevent young pregnant girls from seeking the health and mental care that they need (because they might come under criminal investigation for underage sex). He is an ideological pig who has no understanding of the real world.
Why doesn't he try reality-based sex education in schools instead?! Because he's an idiot with no sense of cause and effect. Education helps people make better decisions about their lives and futures, but he doesn't believe that. It's all hellfire for him.
[Update: The L.A. Times had an article about this 2/26. The Kansas Attorney General is targeting two clinics and asking for every woman's record if she came in over 4-1/2 months pregnant (not just women under 16). If I lived there, that would be me. What right does he have to examine my medical records just because I live in Kansas and visited a clinic at 5 months? It's totally BIG BROTHER and BRAVE NEW WORLD. People, you should be CHILLED that the state wants to invade our privacy this way--just wait, they'll come for you, too. Men, don't be so quick to look the other way when it comes to women's rights...maybe controlled women will start to support the state involuntarily sterilizing promiscuous men...welcome to the slippery slope of body control guys...]
What is LIBERTY to you?
This is infuriating--conservatives have no idea what they are doing. This guy wants to hunt down girls and women who have had abortions by invading their medical records. He thinks that he can prevent underage sexual activity by doing this. The effect of what he is doing will prevent young pregnant girls from seeking the health and mental care that they need (because they might come under criminal investigation for underage sex). He is an ideological pig who has no understanding of the real world.
Why doesn't he try reality-based sex education in schools instead?! Because he's an idiot with no sense of cause and effect. Education helps people make better decisions about their lives and futures, but he doesn't believe that. It's all hellfire for him.
[Update: The L.A. Times had an article about this 2/26. The Kansas Attorney General is targeting two clinics and asking for every woman's record if she came in over 4-1/2 months pregnant (not just women under 16). If I lived there, that would be me. What right does he have to examine my medical records just because I live in Kansas and visited a clinic at 5 months? It's totally BIG BROTHER and BRAVE NEW WORLD. People, you should be CHILLED that the state wants to invade our privacy this way--just wait, they'll come for you, too. Men, don't be so quick to look the other way when it comes to women's rights...maybe controlled women will start to support the state involuntarily sterilizing promiscuous men...welcome to the slippery slope of body control guys...]
What is LIBERTY to you?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Why Isn't Bob Novak Going to Jail?
t r u t h o u t - Tony Norman | Why Isn't Bob Novak Going to Jail?:
"Novak not only knows the identity of the 'senior White House official' who leaked the information to Miller and Cooper, he willingly became a conduit for that information.
What we don't know is whether Novak revealed his source to prosecutors, or whether he is simply enjoying the fruits of years of toadying to the White House."
I've been slow on this issue, having the logic of "freedom of the press" on the right and the left nearly convince me that nothing could be done about Novac's role. That's bullshit--when a reporter, or anyone, actively takes a knowing role in spreading treasonous information (say, like helping terrorists) that messenger is absolutely responsible for delvering treasonous information. Period. This is not someone finding a lost memo, this is someone working effectively and nearly exclusively with certain persons in the White House to relay specific and targeted information. It is felonious sabotage and should be prosecuted appropriately.
Bob Novac should be criminally charged.
"Novak not only knows the identity of the 'senior White House official' who leaked the information to Miller and Cooper, he willingly became a conduit for that information.
What we don't know is whether Novak revealed his source to prosecutors, or whether he is simply enjoying the fruits of years of toadying to the White House."
I've been slow on this issue, having the logic of "freedom of the press" on the right and the left nearly convince me that nothing could be done about Novac's role. That's bullshit--when a reporter, or anyone, actively takes a knowing role in spreading treasonous information (say, like helping terrorists) that messenger is absolutely responsible for delvering treasonous information. Period. This is not someone finding a lost memo, this is someone working effectively and nearly exclusively with certain persons in the White House to relay specific and targeted information. It is felonious sabotage and should be prosecuted appropriately.
Bob Novac should be criminally charged.
Karl Rove hunts the AARP--old people, folks.
Karl Rove is a greedy, viscious capitalist who spreads divisiveness and hatred through our culture:
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 20, 2005 - February 26, 2005 Archives
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 20, 2005 - February 26, 2005 Archives
SundayMirror.co.uk - CAMILLA BANNED FROM WHITE HOUSE
Of course, Bush wouldn't want to host divorced guests at the White House because divorced people (hopefully) have actually learned a lot about marriage--those smarty pants. Nevermind that Reagan was divorced!
SundayMirror.co.uk - CAMILLA BANNED FROM WHITE HOUSE
SundayMirror.co.uk - CAMILLA BANNED FROM WHITE HOUSE
Doctor Lottery
I found out today that my obstetrician may not deliver our baby. In fact, it's highly unlikely that he'll be the doctor on-call. I'm five months pregnant and my understanding was that he would be on-call for us most of the time, but if he were for some reason unavailable, then we'd get another doctor. I probably misheard the secretary months ago, but in my head my odds of getting the doctor that I've been seeing for 5 months were about 85%. Those odds suddenly dropped to 10%.
I was upset. I told the staff how impersonal this was, and that I didn't trust hospitals to begin with and now this... The nurses and staff were surprisingly reasurring, and I left with the goal of getting to know EIGHT doctors who might deliver our child one day in June or July. They thought I had time to meet each twice.
I was thinking that when I grew up in a small town I never would have imagined getting to know a staff of eight doctors that might be needed at an important medical moment. I had two doctors. One got old and then the next one was young and nice and, well, one guy.
I never realized how nice that was until today.
I wonder if our child will experience a team of pediatricians...
I was upset. I told the staff how impersonal this was, and that I didn't trust hospitals to begin with and now this... The nurses and staff were surprisingly reasurring, and I left with the goal of getting to know EIGHT doctors who might deliver our child one day in June or July. They thought I had time to meet each twice.
I was thinking that when I grew up in a small town I never would have imagined getting to know a staff of eight doctors that might be needed at an important medical moment. I had two doctors. One got old and then the next one was young and nice and, well, one guy.
I never realized how nice that was until today.
I wonder if our child will experience a team of pediatricians...
Rage at the U.S.
I used to love America with little question. Just before 9-11 happened I was feeling a new and strong sense of patriotism--I had traveled to Europe and Asia and realized how special this country is--the opportunities we have at our fingertips.
Lately, I've been raging about our President, his administration, our governmental policies, and our collective greed, paranoia and hypocrisy about families and relationships. My outrage comes down to how we, as a society, handle three things:
Dignity
Respect
Attention
I'll write more on this when I'm not working (-:
Lately, I've been raging about our President, his administration, our governmental policies, and our collective greed, paranoia and hypocrisy about families and relationships. My outrage comes down to how we, as a society, handle three things:
Dignity
Respect
Attention
I'll write more on this when I'm not working (-:
Swift Boat Vets to Attack A.A.R.P.
t r u t h o u t - Swift Boat Vets to Attack A.A.R.P.
These folks had a lot to do with Kerry's presidential loss. Now they are helping us define what their mission is: GREED
And they act like they don't represent Bush (yet he works for them!) but "a lawyer for Mr. Bush's campaign was also advising Swift Vets," last year.
I guess there are just loose assemblies of millionaires around this country who want to bully old and poor people...
These folks had a lot to do with Kerry's presidential loss. Now they are helping us define what their mission is: GREED
And they act like they don't represent Bush (yet he works for them!) but "a lawyer for Mr. Bush's campaign was also advising Swift Vets," last year.
I guess there are just loose assemblies of millionaires around this country who want to bully old and poor people...
Saturday, February 19, 2005
t r u t h o u t - Farmers Who Backed Bush Upset with Budget
Oh dear, you trusted the LIAR, and voted for the worst President ever, I have no sympathy for you and I am glad that you are getting slapped in the wallet by your symbol of irresponsible greed:
t r u t h o u t - Farmers Who Backed Bush Upset with Budget
t r u t h o u t - Farmers Who Backed Bush Upset with Budget
Friday, February 18, 2005
Dissecting the abortion debate
I wrote to Harry Reid yesterday because I found out he's "against abortion rights." Of course, this statement without any context drives me nuts. I want to know exactly what they mean (my questions are below). I was also driven mad when I realized that the National Right to Life organization has no position on birth control. Well, they don't want to admit it, but abortion is one form of birth control. It is the most violent, life-ending, sad form of it, but I think it is sometimes necessary for the health of the mother, and for the health of a family.
So I was trying to understand how someone could get obsessed with trying to completely stop women from having abortions without taking a position on other forms of birth control, when I think abortion is a private, health and moral issue for the pregnant woman and her partner.
The difference is about G_d.
I think that most people who support abortions rights theologically believe that children are innocent, and that the unborn has a soul that is protected by G_d. During an abortion, that soul goes to G_d. I may be wrong, but I think most pro-lifers, and especially Catholics who believe that we are born with original sin (shudder), believe that an unborn child that dies does not go to heaven. This concept prevented my friend's mother from believing Catholic teachings when she was 9 years-old. The 9 year-old girl asked the priest, "If my little brother died before he was baptized would he go to heaven?" The priest told her that he would not. She lost her faith in that religion on the spot.
My point is, that these RELIGIOUS beliefs are fundamental to abortion arguments and decisions. A Methodist, a Jew and a Catholic are going to have very different perceptions about the fetal consequences of abortions. Our empathy for the fetus is framed by how we view G_d's role in his or her life.
No one is talking about these very important differences.
How do we legislate these religious differences? We can't--we must allow people to practice their religious beliefs in PRIVATE. Why doesn't this naturally include the right to abortion? If men bore children, it would. Abortions should not be made illegal because some religious beliefs can't tolerate abortions. Those who believe that there is a religious reason why women shouldn't seek abortions, shouldn't seek abortions for themselves or their lovers (if they want to be right with G_d). It is not a religious person's duty to legislate their moral stewardship of pregnant women's private, health and moral decisions.
Once and for all, folks, you CANNOT seperate a growing fetus from his or her mother. This abstraction occurs in "pro-life" arguments ad infinitum, pitting women's lives against the growing lives inside them. The fetus is integrated into a mother's circulatory system and completely relies on the mother for breath, food and life. Quite simply, they are "two for one" until the child is ready to be born.
May G_d bless and protect every life and let our society accept our differences as we live with the freedom to be responsible for our own moral choices.
So I was trying to understand how someone could get obsessed with trying to completely stop women from having abortions without taking a position on other forms of birth control, when I think abortion is a private, health and moral issue for the pregnant woman and her partner.
The difference is about G_d.
I think that most people who support abortions rights theologically believe that children are innocent, and that the unborn has a soul that is protected by G_d. During an abortion, that soul goes to G_d. I may be wrong, but I think most pro-lifers, and especially Catholics who believe that we are born with original sin (shudder), believe that an unborn child that dies does not go to heaven. This concept prevented my friend's mother from believing Catholic teachings when she was 9 years-old. The 9 year-old girl asked the priest, "If my little brother died before he was baptized would he go to heaven?" The priest told her that he would not. She lost her faith in that religion on the spot.
My point is, that these RELIGIOUS beliefs are fundamental to abortion arguments and decisions. A Methodist, a Jew and a Catholic are going to have very different perceptions about the fetal consequences of abortions. Our empathy for the fetus is framed by how we view G_d's role in his or her life.
No one is talking about these very important differences.
How do we legislate these religious differences? We can't--we must allow people to practice their religious beliefs in PRIVATE. Why doesn't this naturally include the right to abortion? If men bore children, it would. Abortions should not be made illegal because some religious beliefs can't tolerate abortions. Those who believe that there is a religious reason why women shouldn't seek abortions, shouldn't seek abortions for themselves or their lovers (if they want to be right with G_d). It is not a religious person's duty to legislate their moral stewardship of pregnant women's private, health and moral decisions.
Once and for all, folks, you CANNOT seperate a growing fetus from his or her mother. This abstraction occurs in "pro-life" arguments ad infinitum, pitting women's lives against the growing lives inside them. The fetus is integrated into a mother's circulatory system and completely relies on the mother for breath, food and life. Quite simply, they are "two for one" until the child is ready to be born.
May G_d bless and protect every life and let our society accept our differences as we live with the freedom to be responsible for our own moral choices.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Abortion and birth control
See? The "pro-lifers" simply don't care about women's reproductive health or preventing abortions with birth control...it's like they want to overpopulate the world or something...
t r u t h o u t - For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks:
"There are 'bigger issues to fight,' she added, 'to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health.' For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to 'please, help us prevent abortions' by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort 'to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control,' on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk 'pulling the wool over the eyes of voters.'"
This black or white approach is so limited: "Birth control isn't the issue; abortion is the only issue." NO RATIONAL PERSON BELIEVES THAT ILLOGICAL POSITION.
t r u t h o u t - For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks:
"There are 'bigger issues to fight,' she added, 'to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health.' For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to 'please, help us prevent abortions' by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort 'to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control,' on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk 'pulling the wool over the eyes of voters.'"
This black or white approach is so limited: "Birth control isn't the issue; abortion is the only issue." NO RATIONAL PERSON BELIEVES THAT ILLOGICAL POSITION.
For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
I want every opponent of "abortion rights" to answer a few questions:
1. What specifically do you oppose? RU486? Just late term abortions? All abortions for disease or disability? Abortions for gender preference? Teen abortions without parental consent?
2. How do you morally justify forcing women (or girls) to carry a child to term and to give birth against her will?
3. What criminal punishments do you advocate when a woman seeks or gets an illegal abortion? For her? For the "doctor?"
4. What are the consequences for the male lover who advocated or paid for an illegal abortion?
5. What are you doing to encourage the use of birth control among young, lower income, and the poorly educated?
6. What are you advocating to make men and women take more responsibility for birth control as well as motherhood and fatherhood? And to improve American familial relationships?
7. What policies are you advocating to help adoptions, orphans, and affordable childcare for women of all income levels???
8. What structures do you identify (or support) in our society that help women mourn miscarriages?
I am FURIOUS that politicians and even citizens go around saying that they are pro-life, anti-abortion, and oppose abortion rights when they DO and SAY NOTHING to address the many economic and social issues that make abortion an appealing option for people (not just women, mind you).
IT IS SO EASY TO SAY THAT YOU OPPOSE ABORTION WITHOUT PROVIDING SOLUTIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE. I am tired and angry about the irresponsible moralizing that people take part in when it comes to women's reproductive "freedoms." They are rarely asked to defend the positions that they want to impose, and that's not democracy, that's moral tyranny.
t r u t h o u t - For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
1. What specifically do you oppose? RU486? Just late term abortions? All abortions for disease or disability? Abortions for gender preference? Teen abortions without parental consent?
2. How do you morally justify forcing women (or girls) to carry a child to term and to give birth against her will?
3. What criminal punishments do you advocate when a woman seeks or gets an illegal abortion? For her? For the "doctor?"
4. What are the consequences for the male lover who advocated or paid for an illegal abortion?
5. What are you doing to encourage the use of birth control among young, lower income, and the poorly educated?
6. What are you advocating to make men and women take more responsibility for birth control as well as motherhood and fatherhood? And to improve American familial relationships?
7. What policies are you advocating to help adoptions, orphans, and affordable childcare for women of all income levels???
8. What structures do you identify (or support) in our society that help women mourn miscarriages?
I am FURIOUS that politicians and even citizens go around saying that they are pro-life, anti-abortion, and oppose abortion rights when they DO and SAY NOTHING to address the many economic and social issues that make abortion an appealing option for people (not just women, mind you).
IT IS SO EASY TO SAY THAT YOU OPPOSE ABORTION WITHOUT PROVIDING SOLUTIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE. I am tired and angry about the irresponsible moralizing that people take part in when it comes to women's reproductive "freedoms." They are rarely asked to defend the positions that they want to impose, and that's not democracy, that's moral tyranny.
t r u t h o u t - For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
A Hireling, a Fraud and a Prostitute - AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS GAY
Gay "Jeff Gannon" used gayness to frighten people away from John Kerry (see article).
and
I WANT THE PRESS TO DISCUSS THAT ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS GAY. BUSH SAID THAT HE WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER. AND HE WAS A GAY PRESIDENT!!!!!! HIS QUEST FOR LIBERTY FOR ALL WAS NO MINOR COINCIDENCE, PEOPLE!
t r u t h o u t - Sidney Blumenthal | A Hireling, a Fraud and a Prostitute
and
I WANT THE PRESS TO DISCUSS THAT ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS GAY. BUSH SAID THAT HE WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER. AND HE WAS A GAY PRESIDENT!!!!!! HIS QUEST FOR LIBERTY FOR ALL WAS NO MINOR COINCIDENCE, PEOPLE!
t r u t h o u t - Sidney Blumenthal | A Hireling, a Fraud and a Prostitute
Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
A stunning turn of events!
t r u t h o u t - Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security:
What Democrats have advocated all along, a minor fix (that greedy heads don't want):
" If Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years, though the system would again face trouble after that, according to one economic analysis. "
t r u t h o u t - Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security:
What Democrats have advocated all along, a minor fix (that greedy heads don't want):
" If Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years, though the system would again face trouble after that, according to one economic analysis. "
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Kyoto and the triumph of U.S. Greed
From:
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
212-727-4511 (voice) / 212-727-1773 (fax)
General email: nrdcinfo@nrdc.org
Earth Action email: nrdcaction@nrdc.org [this is a GREAT service to sign up with]
http://www.nrdc.org
As the somewhat hopeful Kyoto protocol goes into effect today, the auto industry is fighting progress by suing California to block a new law that would cut global arming pollution from cars by 30 percent by 2016. Car exhaust is the second largest source of heat-trapping gases that are changing the world's climate and harming our health.
California, the nation's biggest car market, has adopted the world's first regulations to cut global warming pollution from automobiles. But instead of relying on their engineers to deliver pollution-cutting technologies to consumers, the auto companies brought in their legal teams to pursue backward and unproductive litigation. Even Toyota, Honda and Ford, despite their recent gas-electric hybrids, have locked arms against the clean car law.
The automakers filed suit in December to block California's new emissions standards from taking effect. If the companies prevail, they could effectively hijack the future of clean cars for years to come.
== What to do ==
Send a message demanding that the auto industry withdraw from the lawsuit to block the California clean cars law.
== For background ==
Big Auto Fights California's Landmark Global Warming Law http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fauto.asp
== Contact information ==
You can send a message to the CEOs of DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center at http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52451 Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
212-727-4511 (voice) / 212-727-1773 (fax)
General email: nrdcinfo@nrdc.org
Earth Action email: nrdcaction@nrdc.org [this is a GREAT service to sign up with]
http://www.nrdc.org
As the somewhat hopeful Kyoto protocol goes into effect today, the auto industry is fighting progress by suing California to block a new law that would cut global arming pollution from cars by 30 percent by 2016. Car exhaust is the second largest source of heat-trapping gases that are changing the world's climate and harming our health.
California, the nation's biggest car market, has adopted the world's first regulations to cut global warming pollution from automobiles. But instead of relying on their engineers to deliver pollution-cutting technologies to consumers, the auto companies brought in their legal teams to pursue backward and unproductive litigation. Even Toyota, Honda and Ford, despite their recent gas-electric hybrids, have locked arms against the clean car law.
The automakers filed suit in December to block California's new emissions standards from taking effect. If the companies prevail, they could effectively hijack the future of clean cars for years to come.
== What to do ==
Send a message demanding that the auto industry withdraw from the lawsuit to block the California clean cars law.
== For background ==
Big Auto Fights California's Landmark Global Warming Law http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fauto.asp
== Contact information ==
You can send a message to the CEOs of DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center at http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52451 Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Responsibility
I think it's ironic how most Americans expect the government appointed FDA to educate and protect them from drug side-effects but doesn't expect anyone, especially THE GOVERNMENT, to educate the poor and the ignorant about money or healthy relationships.
The FDA is a BIG JOKE, folks. You need to educate YOURSELF about drugs (they are mostly bad for you), health and nutrition. Use the web, it's there for you. A good start is www.drweil.com.
The FDA is a BIG JOKE, folks. You need to educate YOURSELF about drugs (they are mostly bad for you), health and nutrition. Use the web, it's there for you. A good start is www.drweil.com.
The Quickening
For several days now I've felt our baby (fetus) moving in my womb. It's really great, feeling his presence and feeling like he's healthy and active. I'd felt him pretty early, a flutter or three, but only now are my husband and I sure of him.
I feel that this is our child's "quickening" time--and am sure that this is the origin of the beautiful word--when mother and father could sense the quick, fluttering moments of their growing child.
My father believed that the quickening, an unknowable event for humans, was when G_d imbued a fetus with a soul. That is a wonderful vision, but I believe that we have souls from our conception, and that G_d always protects innocent and good souls.
I feel that this is our child's "quickening" time--and am sure that this is the origin of the beautiful word--when mother and father could sense the quick, fluttering moments of their growing child.
My father believed that the quickening, an unknowable event for humans, was when G_d imbued a fetus with a soul. That is a wonderful vision, but I believe that we have souls from our conception, and that G_d always protects innocent and good souls.
What We Don't Know about 9/11 Hurts Us
I knew then that Bush was the wrong man at the wrong time. Can anyone tell me what he's done right? Anyone?
t r u t h o u t - Robert Scheer | What We Don't Know about 9/11 Hurts Us
t r u t h o u t - Robert Scheer | What We Don't Know about 9/11 Hurts Us
Flexibility
I was just thinking about how excited I am about sharing my yoga with my husband at a one-day couples birth workshop that my yoga place holds. It will immerse him in the relaxing, groovy, non-judgmental environment that I get to experience every week.
Then I had this flashback to when I first started doing yoga at a university gym years ago. I didn't know it then, but I'm not very flexible physically. I've been this way all of my life even though I didn't realize it--I always thought that I just wasn't stretching as much as other kids. I was in gymnastics--I could do back bends and back flips, but I could never do the splits. Again, I just thought I wasn't stretching enough! Anyway, when I first started doing yoga at that university gym I wasn't very coordinated. Yoga is all about accepting one's limitations without judgment (so is psychotherapy) but I hadn't learned much about that then. After one early class I had an aquaintence (a visiting professor from New York City who had never driven a car) increduously ask me if I'd ever done yoga before that day. I had, at home, so I said, "Yes, why?" and she expressed surprise and lots of judgement about my (lack of) ability! It made me never want to do yoga in public again--but I'm more outgoing than that and try not to be dissuaded by what other people think of me.
Anyway, I was just thinking that flexibility is more than a state of body, it's a state of mind, especially when it comes to assessing other people. I need to remember this.
Then I had this flashback to when I first started doing yoga at a university gym years ago. I didn't know it then, but I'm not very flexible physically. I've been this way all of my life even though I didn't realize it--I always thought that I just wasn't stretching as much as other kids. I was in gymnastics--I could do back bends and back flips, but I could never do the splits. Again, I just thought I wasn't stretching enough! Anyway, when I first started doing yoga at that university gym I wasn't very coordinated. Yoga is all about accepting one's limitations without judgment (so is psychotherapy) but I hadn't learned much about that then. After one early class I had an aquaintence (a visiting professor from New York City who had never driven a car) increduously ask me if I'd ever done yoga before that day. I had, at home, so I said, "Yes, why?" and she expressed surprise and lots of judgement about my (lack of) ability! It made me never want to do yoga in public again--but I'm more outgoing than that and try not to be dissuaded by what other people think of me.
Anyway, I was just thinking that flexibility is more than a state of body, it's a state of mind, especially when it comes to assessing other people. I need to remember this.
Great story and Social Security: One for All
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | One for All:
"The concept for a new Social Security system being offered by those who see this as a Christian nation involves a nebulously-defined process of privatization that has to date failed completely to make sense when held up to the light of basic arithmetic. In truth, their plan has more to do with winning an argument that has been raging since the days of FDR than anything else. These politicians would like to see the federal government stripped of the ability to do much besides wage war, and leave absolutely everything else to private corporations seeking to turn a profit from the process. It is worthwhile to note that the corporations seeking to enjoy the profits from this are also the ones who pay for the politicians in question. So it goes. "
"The concept for a new Social Security system being offered by those who see this as a Christian nation involves a nebulously-defined process of privatization that has to date failed completely to make sense when held up to the light of basic arithmetic. In truth, their plan has more to do with winning an argument that has been raging since the days of FDR than anything else. These politicians would like to see the federal government stripped of the ability to do much besides wage war, and leave absolutely everything else to private corporations seeking to turn a profit from the process. It is worthwhile to note that the corporations seeking to enjoy the profits from this are also the ones who pay for the politicians in question. So it goes. "
Reagan's Treasury guy goes after Bush!
I started reading this and thought it was definitely a liberal--he's not:
t r u t h o u t - Paul Craig Roberts | Nothing to Fear But Bush Himself
t r u t h o u t - Paul Craig Roberts | Nothing to Fear But Bush Himself
Access of Evil - our broadcast and journalist media
t r u t h o u t - Amy Goodman, Voice of America
"So why does the corporate media allow the contours of the debate to be set by the Democrats and the Republicans?
I don't know why. I know that they do it. In the book I wrote with my brother, David Goodman, The Exception to the Rulers, we talk about the "access of evil." Bush talks about the "axis of evil," you know, we talk about the press' "Access of Evil" and that is trading truth for access in order to get the next... lie, in order to get the quote from the player himself, whether it's Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheney. They trade truth for access, and that's unacceptable."
"So why does the corporate media allow the contours of the debate to be set by the Democrats and the Republicans?
I don't know why. I know that they do it. In the book I wrote with my brother, David Goodman, The Exception to the Rulers, we talk about the "access of evil." Bush talks about the "axis of evil," you know, we talk about the press' "Access of Evil" and that is trading truth for access in order to get the next... lie, in order to get the quote from the player himself, whether it's Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheney. They trade truth for access, and that's unacceptable."
Monday, February 14, 2005
American lives for oil and moral relativism
The article below chillingly reveals one reason why most Americans are not on the streets protesting this war in Iraq. We know it's for oil, and we're comfortable expending American lives for that.
Many years ago, during the Gulf War, I was arguing with my conservative friend about why we invaded Iraq. I said we were there because of American economic interests, and she said, "Then why is Germany helping us?" and I said, "Because they want the oil." She paused, thought, and then said, "Is that so bad?"
This comment has long haunted me, the idea that someone will just go along with an unethical underpinning for war. At the time, I didn't know how to answer it because it seemed so basically bad, WAR FOR OIL, that isn't so bad? I couldn't fathom how she got there, or really, where she was! Sacrificing Iraqis and Americans for oil, is that so bad? At the end of the article below, be sure to check out the similarly yellow response by the guy who was very recently caught in his moral relativism.
Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce accuses liberals of moral relativism, and claims that we're the only ones who do it--she's confused. "Is that so bad?" is absolutely a question comparing bad vs. bad and then negating an actual bad by basically saying, "This isn't bad because it could be worse." As I've illustrated before, some lies ARE worse than others (this is moral relativism and EVERYONE uses it), but conservatives and hypocrites decide to selectively use moral relativism and absolutism. They use moral absolutism (things are all bad, or all good) for evaluating their enemies (for Clinton any lie was worth impeachment), and then they use moral relativism for excusing Bush (Bush has to lie to protect us). IT'S NUTS--AND IT'S WRONG!
Liberals should be very proud that we nearly always use moral relativism to improve our position in the world (killing for oil is worse than killing for freedom), whereas conservative leaders today are simply lying about the fact that we are killing for oil. The fact that most Americans are willfully comfortable about that is one of the scariest moral issues of our time--much scarier RELATIVE to the president getting a blow-job in the oval office (those were the days...).
We Need the Oil
Many years ago, during the Gulf War, I was arguing with my conservative friend about why we invaded Iraq. I said we were there because of American economic interests, and she said, "Then why is Germany helping us?" and I said, "Because they want the oil." She paused, thought, and then said, "Is that so bad?"
This comment has long haunted me, the idea that someone will just go along with an unethical underpinning for war. At the time, I didn't know how to answer it because it seemed so basically bad, WAR FOR OIL, that isn't so bad? I couldn't fathom how she got there, or really, where she was! Sacrificing Iraqis and Americans for oil, is that so bad? At the end of the article below, be sure to check out the similarly yellow response by the guy who was very recently caught in his moral relativism.
Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce accuses liberals of moral relativism, and claims that we're the only ones who do it--she's confused. "Is that so bad?" is absolutely a question comparing bad vs. bad and then negating an actual bad by basically saying, "This isn't bad because it could be worse." As I've illustrated before, some lies ARE worse than others (this is moral relativism and EVERYONE uses it), but conservatives and hypocrites decide to selectively use moral relativism and absolutism. They use moral absolutism (things are all bad, or all good) for evaluating their enemies (for Clinton any lie was worth impeachment), and then they use moral relativism for excusing Bush (Bush has to lie to protect us). IT'S NUTS--AND IT'S WRONG!
Liberals should be very proud that we nearly always use moral relativism to improve our position in the world (killing for oil is worse than killing for freedom), whereas conservative leaders today are simply lying about the fact that we are killing for oil. The fact that most Americans are willfully comfortable about that is one of the scariest moral issues of our time--much scarier RELATIVE to the president getting a blow-job in the oval office (those were the days...).
We Need the Oil
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Condi Rice - LIAR
"No Al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration," Dr. Rice wrote in an op-ed article for The Washington Post last March [2004]. She wrote that Mr. Clarke and his team "suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted."
The Plan
At least one plan shown above dated:
January 25, 2001
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE
FROM: RICHARD A. CLARKE
SUBJECT: Presidential Policy Initiative/Review -- The Al-Qida Network
The Plan
At least one plan shown above dated:
January 25, 2001
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE
FROM: RICHARD A. CLARKE
SUBJECT: Presidential Policy Initiative/Review -- The Al-Qida Network
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Gender hang-ups and real valentines.
My poor husband is subjected to quite a few men with bad attitudes about women. They tell him that once we have a child, I'll become this nasty, complaining, bitchy woman who dumps our kid on him as soon as he comes home from work. They tell him his sex life is over (I'm 5 months pregnant and nothing's changed yet--in fact--we just get hotter!).
I get told that he'll fool around on me when I'm *really* pregnant, and that I better put together a secret emergency fund for the day that he leaves me and our children to fend for ourselves. Whew!
We're nice people so I guess folks know that we won't kick their asses for saying these things. Maybe we should. The truth is that we're very humble about what we have with each other (not so much to each other, of course) and we see so few people lucky enough to experience what we are that we don't want to "rub it in." Maybe we should.
We've only been together 2-1/2 years, and we're still giddy, but we love each other so much that we deeply believe we'll always be excited about each other. We were ridiculed once when we admitted in front of a group of people that we are "soul mates." It makes us laugh till this day, because the people who ridiculed us (one "empiricist" said that the concept seemed "pathological") didn't change our minds and wound up looking quite cynical and mean.
I think that's how many relationships are though; the bonds between men and women are viewed cynically and often lack both trust and affection. When we are among couples who treat each other this way, we feel quite uncomfortable and very sorry for each member of the couple. My husband and I live with somewhat traditional roles (I cook, we clean, he brings home 90% of the bacon, and I'll be a stay-at-home mom), and this makes a lot of people think we're just role playing (especially me), or threatened (just as I can feel threatened by a high income-earning female!).
The truth is, this is the role I've always wanted: wife, mother, artist. And we talk about my husband's goals and life plan very often. It's not always easy "playing" our roles, but we don't expect perfection from each other and we forgive each other's mistakes and failings. We love our life together more than anything else in the world.
This Valentine's day, I hope every couple takes a look at how they treat each other. I hope that singles think about how they want to be treated, and how they want to treat their new loves. Respect, emotional communication, honesty, affection, trust, forgiveness--these things are so easily and quickly disposed of in our cynical, perfection-driven culture. We believe we have it all even when we don't (I've been there). It is so important for each individual to know what they want out of life, and what they need from their partners, and what their partners need. Those that do this on a daily basis know what it means to be a Valentine.
Peace
I get told that he'll fool around on me when I'm *really* pregnant, and that I better put together a secret emergency fund for the day that he leaves me and our children to fend for ourselves. Whew!
We're nice people so I guess folks know that we won't kick their asses for saying these things. Maybe we should. The truth is that we're very humble about what we have with each other (not so much to each other, of course) and we see so few people lucky enough to experience what we are that we don't want to "rub it in." Maybe we should.
We've only been together 2-1/2 years, and we're still giddy, but we love each other so much that we deeply believe we'll always be excited about each other. We were ridiculed once when we admitted in front of a group of people that we are "soul mates." It makes us laugh till this day, because the people who ridiculed us (one "empiricist" said that the concept seemed "pathological") didn't change our minds and wound up looking quite cynical and mean.
I think that's how many relationships are though; the bonds between men and women are viewed cynically and often lack both trust and affection. When we are among couples who treat each other this way, we feel quite uncomfortable and very sorry for each member of the couple. My husband and I live with somewhat traditional roles (I cook, we clean, he brings home 90% of the bacon, and I'll be a stay-at-home mom), and this makes a lot of people think we're just role playing (especially me), or threatened (just as I can feel threatened by a high income-earning female!).
The truth is, this is the role I've always wanted: wife, mother, artist. And we talk about my husband's goals and life plan very often. It's not always easy "playing" our roles, but we don't expect perfection from each other and we forgive each other's mistakes and failings. We love our life together more than anything else in the world.
This Valentine's day, I hope every couple takes a look at how they treat each other. I hope that singles think about how they want to be treated, and how they want to treat their new loves. Respect, emotional communication, honesty, affection, trust, forgiveness--these things are so easily and quickly disposed of in our cynical, perfection-driven culture. We believe we have it all even when we don't (I've been there). It is so important for each individual to know what they want out of life, and what they need from their partners, and what their partners need. Those that do this on a daily basis know what it means to be a Valentine.
Peace
t r u t h o u t - Paul Krugman | Bush's Class-War Budget
t r u t h o u t - Paul Krugman | Bush's Class-War Budget
Under Bush, the meek shall not inherit the earth, as we enter Lent, let's review some particularly Christian commandments:
Matthew 19:16-26 (I like to call the teacher Rabbi Jesus)
16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said,"You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness.
19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus on the Poor
Under Bush, the meek shall not inherit the earth, as we enter Lent, let's review some particularly Christian commandments:
Matthew 19:16-26 (I like to call the teacher Rabbi Jesus)
16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said,"You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness.
19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus on the Poor
t r u t h o u t - Rolling Stone: The Return of the Draft
Dear Husband,
If Bush goes to war with N. Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or South America (he'd love to) and institutes the draft... Honey? Can we move to England or Canada? I don't believe that the people who have vehemently opposed the Bushies stupid, violent, short-sighted, and infantile policies, and who have been ignored as radical, anti-Americans by those that support this war, should have to fight other ridiculous wars.
I find it absolutely hypocritical that more Americans support the Iraq war than are willing to fight in it. Charlie Rangle is right.
I can tell you that I would fight for a war that I believed in; I would have gone to Afghanistan--why won't they?
XO,
Your Love
From: t r u t h o u t - Rolling Stone: The Return of the Draft
...A societywide draft would also make it more difficult for politicians to commit troops to battle without popular approval. "The folks making the decisions are committing other people's lives to a war effort that they're not making any sacrifices for," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, who fought in the first Gulf War and now serves as director of Veterans for Common Sense. Under the current all-volunteer system, fewer than a dozen members of Congress have children in the military.
Charlie Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, says the volunteer system also limits the political fallout of unpopular wars. "Without a draft, there's really no antiwar movement," Moskos says. Nearly sixty percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, he notes, but they have no immediate self-interest in taking to the streets because "we're willing to pay people to die for us. It doesn't reflect very well on the character of our society."
Even military recruiters agree that the only way to persuade average Americans to make long-term sacrifices in war is for the children of the elite to put their lives on the line. In a recent meeting with military recruiters, Moskos discussed the crisis in enlistment. "I asked them would they prefer to have their advertising budget tripled or have Jenna Bush join the Army," he says. "They unanimously chose the Jenna option."
One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft - with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone - no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."
But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately - rather than wait five years - if they volunteer for active duty.
"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.
If Bush goes to war with N. Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or South America (he'd love to) and institutes the draft... Honey? Can we move to England or Canada? I don't believe that the people who have vehemently opposed the Bushies stupid, violent, short-sighted, and infantile policies, and who have been ignored as radical, anti-Americans by those that support this war, should have to fight other ridiculous wars.
I find it absolutely hypocritical that more Americans support the Iraq war than are willing to fight in it. Charlie Rangle is right.
I can tell you that I would fight for a war that I believed in; I would have gone to Afghanistan--why won't they?
XO,
Your Love
From: t r u t h o u t - Rolling Stone: The Return of the Draft
...A societywide draft would also make it more difficult for politicians to commit troops to battle without popular approval. "The folks making the decisions are committing other people's lives to a war effort that they're not making any sacrifices for," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, who fought in the first Gulf War and now serves as director of Veterans for Common Sense. Under the current all-volunteer system, fewer than a dozen members of Congress have children in the military.
Charlie Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, says the volunteer system also limits the political fallout of unpopular wars. "Without a draft, there's really no antiwar movement," Moskos says. Nearly sixty percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, he notes, but they have no immediate self-interest in taking to the streets because "we're willing to pay people to die for us. It doesn't reflect very well on the character of our society."
Even military recruiters agree that the only way to persuade average Americans to make long-term sacrifices in war is for the children of the elite to put their lives on the line. In a recent meeting with military recruiters, Moskos discussed the crisis in enlistment. "I asked them would they prefer to have their advertising budget tripled or have Jenna Bush join the Army," he says. "They unanimously chose the Jenna option."
One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft - with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone - no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."
But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately - rather than wait five years - if they volunteer for active duty.
"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.
Changing Minds, One at a Time; and the Anti-Christ
Ahh, an optimist who uses the lessons of American history to imagine a change in U.S. opinion. Why am I not comforted? I have childhood friends who voted for Bush that I cannot bring myself to talk with today. I am so frustrated and absolutely stunned that they could support a single policy that he has instituted. I cannot think of one healthy, peace-loving, non-greedy thing that he has attempted or accomplished--and it pains me to think that my college-educated, female, conservative friends either support or are ignorant of these facts. It bothers me a lot as my husband and I bring another child into this dangerous world--we want those around him to model a love of truth, justice, personal responsibility, as well as social and self-awareness. My liberal friend and I told our conservative friends the truth about Bush and his administration in the best ways we could, but we had a very hard time "changing minds." We didn't. After the election my liberal friend was so angry that she courageously said that our friends had blood on their hands. I agreed with her, but stayed silent about it, not wanting to spread shame in order to persuade my friends to see things my way. The shame should blossom in themselves, and maybe I'm just waiting for that to happen...
t r u t h o u t - Howard Zinn | Changing Minds, One at a Time
The Anti-Christ
Bush's policies are the reverse of my Judeo-Christian world view. I don't believe there was a Christ (son of God), but no one represents the anti-Christ (anti-Jesus) to me better than George Bush's actions. Everything he does helps the "money-changers," the only people Christ raged at! Everything he does turns away from Christ's compassionate, "teach a man to fish," and non-judgemental lessons. Literally, one has to provide a teacher and healthy fish in order for that parable to work in life. Bush has no interest in really teaching our population how to live better (especially in regard to the truth and his economic policies), nor does he show any interest in preserving our environment for healthy fish! He's too busy hanging out in the temple of money-changers, a total greedy fake who tells people that he's a friend of Christ. Logically, the anti-Christ would distort Christ's legacy. He would say "I am a Christian" while he works for the devils in our time.
t r u t h o u t - Howard Zinn | Changing Minds, One at a Time
The Anti-Christ
Bush's policies are the reverse of my Judeo-Christian world view. I don't believe there was a Christ (son of God), but no one represents the anti-Christ (anti-Jesus) to me better than George Bush's actions. Everything he does helps the "money-changers," the only people Christ raged at! Everything he does turns away from Christ's compassionate, "teach a man to fish," and non-judgemental lessons. Literally, one has to provide a teacher and healthy fish in order for that parable to work in life. Bush has no interest in really teaching our population how to live better (especially in regard to the truth and his economic policies), nor does he show any interest in preserving our environment for healthy fish! He's too busy hanging out in the temple of money-changers, a total greedy fake who tells people that he's a friend of Christ. Logically, the anti-Christ would distort Christ's legacy. He would say "I am a Christian" while he works for the devils in our time.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Arms Race
Ahhh, it's so great to wake up and know that we're in an arms race again--this time with a rogue Middle Eastern nation and a crazy Korean dictator--cultures we have no "in" in!
Thanks Ronald Reagan, we missed you and the Russian stand-off.
Thanks George W. Bush!
God Bless America!
P.S. I've changed my mind that I wanted King George to clean up his own mess; I'd much rather Kerry and his people had gotten a chance at it. The world's too dangerous for a silver spoon, frat boy, oil rich, "bail out my business, Prince Saudi" corporate puppet, use the gay-bashing and lifers [every one of the women in his family are PRO-CHOICE!), nitwit President.
Thanks Ronald Reagan, we missed you and the Russian stand-off.
Thanks George W. Bush!
God Bless America!
P.S. I've changed my mind that I wanted King George to clean up his own mess; I'd much rather Kerry and his people had gotten a chance at it. The world's too dangerous for a silver spoon, frat boy, oil rich, "bail out my business, Prince Saudi" corporate puppet, use the gay-bashing and lifers [every one of the women in his family are PRO-CHOICE!), nitwit President.
The News is Broken
The News is Broken
Worth a read. Dirty, fraudulent politics and a PARANOID administration, motivated by GREED, that can't handle reporting the truth. This hurts even you, conservatives. If America actually wakes up, they'll never trust your kind again. Do you like relying on ignorance and the duplicitous, emasculated mainstream press to keep in power? First there was Nixon, now there's the Bushies.
Worth a read. Dirty, fraudulent politics and a PARANOID administration, motivated by GREED, that can't handle reporting the truth. This hurts even you, conservatives. If America actually wakes up, they'll never trust your kind again. Do you like relying on ignorance and the duplicitous, emasculated mainstream press to keep in power? First there was Nixon, now there's the Bushies.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
t r u t h o u t - North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons, Leaves Talks
Those who elected Bush may or may not recall, but JOHN KERRY was going to talk to these crazy N. Korean people DIRECTLY. Instead, we elected a cowboy who vacantly talks about ending tyranny while tyrants build nuclear bombs to protect themselves from him...they have had no incentive to do otherwise, in other words they had to either WIN or LOSE.
t r u t h o u t - North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons, Leaves Talks
t r u t h o u t - North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons, Leaves Talks
Korean nuclear weapons
Under Bush's watch, Korea has now developed nuclear weapons and are basically threatening to use them. They see the U.S. as a threat to their security (thanks, neo-con hawks and the rest of America that likes to be perceived by the world as a big bully). Their leaders are psychokillers who deal with terrorists. What the hell are the Bushies going to do now? I just have so much trust and faith in their rational, stunningly successful acts thus far.
My real question is, how far do those weapons reach? I bet they can hit L.A.
My real question is, how far do those weapons reach? I bet they can hit L.A.
Over 200 U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
GREED leads to scientific fraud.
Ah yes, Bush, the great conservative steward of the land and sea...(if it doesn't have oil, gas, limber or feed on it).
t r u t h o u t - Over 200 U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
Ah yes, Bush, the great conservative steward of the land and sea...(if it doesn't have oil, gas, limber or feed on it).
t r u t h o u t - Over 200 U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
t r u t h o u t - Classified 9/11 Report Exposes Multiple Attack Warnings
In 2001, Bush's FAA was so intent on making the airline industries more money they took their eyes off of national security. According to the post I blogged below, if conservatives think of our government as family then Daddy was so focused on his corporate profits that he forgot to lock the @#$@#ing front door.
t r u t h o u t - Classified 9/11 Report Exposes Multiple Attack Warnings
t r u t h o u t - Classified 9/11 Report Exposes Multiple Attack Warnings
How Liberals and Conservatives Think
I can't wait to read this book, it seems very wise:
Political positions are usually cast as being either "liberal" or "conservative." But what is the basis of liberalism or conservatism? How is it that conservatives, disapproving of big government, can support rolling up large deficits or extending "welfare" to corporations. Where is the logic? [no kidding!] According to the author, the explanation lies in morality. What best explains the politics of conservatives and liberals is their fundamentally different moral worldviews. Those views are grounded in models of family morality. The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate [even if it's corrupt, apparently] authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.
Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment [Yes it is! I was punished by liberal parents, oh wait, no that was my conservative mom, but my husband and I will discipline our children, punish them justly, and liberals generally believe in karma...]. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness [equality] is a priority for government.
Amazon.com: Books: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Political positions are usually cast as being either "liberal" or "conservative." But what is the basis of liberalism or conservatism? How is it that conservatives, disapproving of big government, can support rolling up large deficits or extending "welfare" to corporations. Where is the logic? [no kidding!] According to the author, the explanation lies in morality. What best explains the politics of conservatives and liberals is their fundamentally different moral worldviews. Those views are grounded in models of family morality. The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate [even if it's corrupt, apparently] authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.
Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment [Yes it is! I was punished by liberal parents, oh wait, no that was my conservative mom, but my husband and I will discipline our children, punish them justly, and liberals generally believe in karma...]. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness [equality] is a priority for government.
Amazon.com: Books: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Bad Cop, Good Cop on Iran
Iran and Rice
Iran is a threat to Israel, not the U.S. So why the hell is the U.S. shouting down Iran's throat with unsubstantiated claims that they are creating nuclear weapons? According to sources inside the pentagon the idealistic, unrealistic, neo-con pentagon that brought us Iraq is planning to mow down and "democratize" Iran. I'm sure conservatives again have blind faith that our military can effortlessly accomplish this major task...light and quick...we must have learned from Iraq.
The pentagon thinks that we just have to bomb out some nuclear sites in Iran (hope that they don't flatten Israel if we miss) and then the Iranian people will topple their leadership and will greet us as liberators. Sound familiar?
I didn't believe it at first, but now I do. Why do I keep thinking rational minds will take over when nothing rational has happened during Bush's entire term?
Rice and Bush are taking the same damned course they did with Iraq. They are building an argument that only they find credible (e.g. Iran is definitely making bombs). They are eager to push a resolution through the U.N., watch it crumble, and then bomb.
In keeping with conservatives' canny ability to tell people what to do, yet offer those people no incentives to do it, we are not engaged in any negotiations with Iran. Europe, on the other hand, is offering technological and economic incentives to try to stop Iran's nuclear course. Smarter. Win/Win.
Too bad we can't stop Iran from developing nuclear power, too. Bush's people are working at building more U.S. "nucular" plants (and bombs!) soon--yet another example of half-baked and irresponsible Repubican ideas. They call the production of nuclear waste products "clean energy." Buggers. If only they cared a wit about G_d's green earth. If only they could demonstrate that they care a wit about anything other than GREED.
Iran is a threat to Israel, not the U.S. So why the hell is the U.S. shouting down Iran's throat with unsubstantiated claims that they are creating nuclear weapons? According to sources inside the pentagon the idealistic, unrealistic, neo-con pentagon that brought us Iraq is planning to mow down and "democratize" Iran. I'm sure conservatives again have blind faith that our military can effortlessly accomplish this major task...light and quick...we must have learned from Iraq.
The pentagon thinks that we just have to bomb out some nuclear sites in Iran (hope that they don't flatten Israel if we miss) and then the Iranian people will topple their leadership and will greet us as liberators. Sound familiar?
I didn't believe it at first, but now I do. Why do I keep thinking rational minds will take over when nothing rational has happened during Bush's entire term?
Rice and Bush are taking the same damned course they did with Iraq. They are building an argument that only they find credible (e.g. Iran is definitely making bombs). They are eager to push a resolution through the U.N., watch it crumble, and then bomb.
In keeping with conservatives' canny ability to tell people what to do, yet offer those people no incentives to do it, we are not engaged in any negotiations with Iran. Europe, on the other hand, is offering technological and economic incentives to try to stop Iran's nuclear course. Smarter. Win/Win.
Too bad we can't stop Iran from developing nuclear power, too. Bush's people are working at building more U.S. "nucular" plants (and bombs!) soon--yet another example of half-baked and irresponsible Repubican ideas. They call the production of nuclear waste products "clean energy." Buggers. If only they cared a wit about G_d's green earth. If only they could demonstrate that they care a wit about anything other than GREED.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
What's the truth about Splenda?
If it seems too good to be true it probably is...(and it's not earned):
What's the truth about Splenda?
for the adgrunts advertising blog commercial archive
I don't know why the link won't show up, some conspiracy? Here it is without html (copy and paste it into your browser): http://ad-rag.com/117174.php
See the links to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, ugh!
By the way, my good friend suffered bleached skin spots, like reverse freckles, after she consumed Splenda instead of sugar, regularly. They won't go away ever.
What's the truth about Splenda?
for the adgrunts advertising blog commercial archive
I don't know why the link won't show up, some conspiracy? Here it is without html (copy and paste it into your browser): http://ad-rag.com/117174.php
See the links to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, ugh!
By the way, my good friend suffered bleached skin spots, like reverse freckles, after she consumed Splenda instead of sugar, regularly. They won't go away ever.
t r u t h o u t - Jan Lundberg | War on Plastic: Rejecting the Toxic Plague
Yites, what an inconvenient awareness...
t r u t h o u t - Jan Lundberg | War on Plastic: Rejecting the Toxic Plague
t r u t h o u t - Jan Lundberg | War on Plastic: Rejecting the Toxic Plague
Is this a junk lawsuit? Frivilous asbestos claims?
When our President spoke of frivilous asbestos lawsuits during the State of the Union I watched Cheney. He smirked a smile, he may even have nodded (I'm not sure on that). His eyes twinkled. His company has absorbed companies that have asbestos problems.
How ANYONE can trust the President or Vice President's greedy, corporate way of running our now bankrupt government is beyond my comprehension. It takes an enormous amount of willful ignorance or denial.
t r u t h o u t - ECO FOCUS: W.R. Grace Indicted in Libby Asbestos Deaths
How ANYONE can trust the President or Vice President's greedy, corporate way of running our now bankrupt government is beyond my comprehension. It takes an enormous amount of willful ignorance or denial.
t r u t h o u t - ECO FOCUS: W.R. Grace Indicted in Libby Asbestos Deaths
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Iran-Contra Figure to Lead Democracy Efforts Abroad
t r u t h o u t - Iran-Contra Figure to Lead Democracy Efforts Abroad
The White House is so dirty--it's overwhelming. The Bush and Cheney people are behind the assassins, the secret CIA operatives causing havoc in other countries, they are SO tainted, so bent on violence and cruelty as a means to power. Nothing they do reassures me that we're headed toward peace in the Middle East. Hold on for the ride, America. If you want aggressive, you've got it in spades. If you want peace and economic prosperity, don't hold your breath.
The White House is so dirty--it's overwhelming. The Bush and Cheney people are behind the assassins, the secret CIA operatives causing havoc in other countries, they are SO tainted, so bent on violence and cruelty as a means to power. Nothing they do reassures me that we're headed toward peace in the Middle East. Hold on for the ride, America. If you want aggressive, you've got it in spades. If you want peace and economic prosperity, don't hold your breath.
James Carroll | Train Wreck of an Election
t r u t h o u t - James Carroll | Train Wreck of an Election
An eloquent analogy of Bush' Iraq and the man who caused a train wreck in California.
An eloquent analogy of Bush' Iraq and the man who caused a train wreck in California.
Touchdown for the Indecency Police
t r u t h o u t - Frank Rich | Touchdown for the Indecency Police
The actions of PARANOIA
From now on I'm going to label Republican concerns/actions as either paranoid or greedy (GOP). It's good to be specific and name the problems. This article reveals the paranoid: targeting gay content in the media as if one can "catch" being homosexual by seeing homosexual families; as if someone will have sex just because they've learned how to do it safely; as if people want abortions just because they are legal (for now).
All this moral values BS from the right is the height of hypocrisy when we're fighting an immoral war with the whitehouse proudly basking in immoral policies [see Who Would Jesus Bomb? below]. Yeah, let's have a truly honest debate about Judeo-Christian orality right now. No one in the press or corporate America is asking for THAT discussion.
Something sinister just occurred to me, since so many heterosexuals are wanting to make "marriage" their exclusive privilege, how long is it until they also claim "family" as a heterosexual privlilege too? Perhaps they'll suggest that we call gay families "civil arrangements" instead.
When will all heterosexuals accept that homosexuals are just like them in every way but sex? Why the narrow focus on sex? What's the problem with that? If we use the bible as a guide, one might also think it's fine to get your father drunk and screw him (see Genesis, Lot and his daughters), and we should all stop eating shellfish. Alternatively, we could evolve and CHOOSE to avoid incest, love gay people, and enjoy delicious shrimp scampi!
By the way, did you know Abraham Lincoln was gay [see blog below]? I really think conservatives should all be talking about that bit of news. Instead, they're just denying that it's true and keeping it low.
He was SO gay.
The actions of PARANOIA
From now on I'm going to label Republican concerns/actions as either paranoid or greedy (GOP). It's good to be specific and name the problems. This article reveals the paranoid: targeting gay content in the media as if one can "catch" being homosexual by seeing homosexual families; as if someone will have sex just because they've learned how to do it safely; as if people want abortions just because they are legal (for now).
All this moral values BS from the right is the height of hypocrisy when we're fighting an immoral war with the whitehouse proudly basking in immoral policies [see Who Would Jesus Bomb? below]. Yeah, let's have a truly honest debate about Judeo-Christian orality right now. No one in the press or corporate America is asking for THAT discussion.
Something sinister just occurred to me, since so many heterosexuals are wanting to make "marriage" their exclusive privilege, how long is it until they also claim "family" as a heterosexual privlilege too? Perhaps they'll suggest that we call gay families "civil arrangements" instead.
When will all heterosexuals accept that homosexuals are just like them in every way but sex? Why the narrow focus on sex? What's the problem with that? If we use the bible as a guide, one might also think it's fine to get your father drunk and screw him (see Genesis, Lot and his daughters), and we should all stop eating shellfish. Alternatively, we could evolve and CHOOSE to avoid incest, love gay people, and enjoy delicious shrimp scampi!
By the way, did you know Abraham Lincoln was gay [see blog below]? I really think conservatives should all be talking about that bit of news. Instead, they're just denying that it's true and keeping it low.
He was SO gay.
t r u t h o u t - Marjorie Cohn | Another World Is Possible
t r u t h o u t - Marjorie Cohn | Another World Is Possible
I'm seriously questioning what it means to live in America now (or even recently). In the 20th century, we became a negative force in the world. We secretly assasinate legitimate leaders and support tyrants.
I was thinking about the general, overarching mindset of Americans today. Why don't we live like Canadians? They are peaceful, have universal healthcare, are economically healthy, live quiet lives, and have safe communities. Their culture actually reflects family values. Americans think that is weak! What does that say about us? It says our general mindset is AGGRESSIVE. We like being feared, we like being the bully. We like being rich and envied. Even leftist elites have this mindset--we are bitterly aggressive inside our fields and among colleagues.
Sure, we're okay with some of us doing yoga, eating organic and driving volvos (BTW, I took a picture of a veteran for Kerry bumbersticker owner driving a Volvo yesterday), but if we were all that sensitive most of us, including lots of hippies, would feel like we'd castrated the country.
That's a big reason there's no great push for an end to this war, no great fear that we'll continue to be at war. War is a salve for aggressive bullies.
I've been hammering the GOP with my new slogan Greedy or Paranoid (or both)? But the GOP is just playing on those aspects of our aggressive culture to maintain power. They'd probably exploit any mindset that would gain them power, but conservatism just happens to dovetail nicely with greed and paranoia.
Our culture and the GOP are a match made in hell.
We are stuck in a mindset of I win, you lose; you win, I lose (Republicans advocate this). Like, Republicans think that if we give universal healthcare to CHILDREN, taxpayers lose. They set up a paradigm where taxpayers are competing with children's health! This is why so much of Republican power is wrapped up with lies, cloaks, and distortions. This is fundamentally wrong if we want healthy families, jobs and communities. We must learn to win/win (of course, Democrats advocate this).
We can't have equality and trust without win/win.
I'm seriously questioning what it means to live in America now (or even recently). In the 20th century, we became a negative force in the world. We secretly assasinate legitimate leaders and support tyrants.
I was thinking about the general, overarching mindset of Americans today. Why don't we live like Canadians? They are peaceful, have universal healthcare, are economically healthy, live quiet lives, and have safe communities. Their culture actually reflects family values. Americans think that is weak! What does that say about us? It says our general mindset is AGGRESSIVE. We like being feared, we like being the bully. We like being rich and envied. Even leftist elites have this mindset--we are bitterly aggressive inside our fields and among colleagues.
Sure, we're okay with some of us doing yoga, eating organic and driving volvos (BTW, I took a picture of a veteran for Kerry bumbersticker owner driving a Volvo yesterday), but if we were all that sensitive most of us, including lots of hippies, would feel like we'd castrated the country.
That's a big reason there's no great push for an end to this war, no great fear that we'll continue to be at war. War is a salve for aggressive bullies.
I've been hammering the GOP with my new slogan Greedy or Paranoid (or both)? But the GOP is just playing on those aspects of our aggressive culture to maintain power. They'd probably exploit any mindset that would gain them power, but conservatism just happens to dovetail nicely with greed and paranoia.
Our culture and the GOP are a match made in hell.
We are stuck in a mindset of I win, you lose; you win, I lose (Republicans advocate this). Like, Republicans think that if we give universal healthcare to CHILDREN, taxpayers lose. They set up a paradigm where taxpayers are competing with children's health! This is why so much of Republican power is wrapped up with lies, cloaks, and distortions. This is fundamentally wrong if we want healthy families, jobs and communities. We must learn to win/win (of course, Democrats advocate this).
We can't have equality and trust without win/win.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
t r u t h o u t - Jacques Coubard | Bush Declares War on the Poor
t r u t h o u t - Jacques Coubard | Bush Declares War on the Poor
As my observant friend Barbara points out, everything that Bush and his friends do is meant to help those who are rich and hurt or ignore those that are poor. That's exactly what privatizing social security does. Why would he care about a gamble with federal money? Every gamble he's ever made and lost has been swept up by his daddy's Saudi friends. When are those Saudi Arabian elections going to happen?
As my observant friend Barbara points out, everything that Bush and his friends do is meant to help those who are rich and hurt or ignore those that are poor. That's exactly what privatizing social security does. Why would he care about a gamble with federal money? Every gamble he's ever made and lost has been swept up by his daddy's Saudi friends. When are those Saudi Arabian elections going to happen?
Bush the LIAR and how GREED fuels our country
The New Republic Online: Concession to Reality: Bush's comments during his speech about on Social Security are framed here as "distortions," "intellectual chicanery," "typically misleading," "hyperbolic," and "misleading." But he does'nt call Bush a liar.
BUSH IS A PROUD LIAR! Not only did he lie about the MONETARY facts in front of us (e.g. $200 billion then $300 billion is an infinite estimate, so he totally distorted the facts at the very least) but he definitely lied about the AMERICAN PEOPLE who created and planned Social Security. He dismissed their hard work and smart planning by saying that they didn't foresee the growth of our elderly (they did!) and other changes (they predicted all of them almost perfectly!). Imagine donig a good job planning the future, dying, then having some bozo say that you actually didn't have ANY foresight about the future. THAT BOZO TURN-COAT IS GEORGE W. BUSH! Is there suddenly some rule against the press calling our president a liar when he obviously is one?
The author of the article above acknowleges "...big lies," about Social Security more passively, less directly to the president's own words.
Did the press forget to call Clinton a liar? I don't think so...and Clinton's lies had nothing to do with federal MONEY or hardworking AMERICAN PEOPLE, the ENVIRONMENT or WAR, like Bush's lies do. We all lie, but some lies have much different moral and legal consequences.
Why do bloggers exist? Because the PRESS is in cahoots with MONEY and WAR. Why are Americans complacent about our lying press and government? Because we are squeezed and we want cheap goods and more money to spend, spend, spend!!!!!!!!
GREED IS RUNNING THIS NATION.
I just heard today on PUBLIC RADIO, not PRIVATE PRESS, that Halliburton and G.E. do business in Iran. That's illegal because Iran sponsers terrorism. They get around the law...
You may have to register for the article above, but it's good free reading for awhile without having to give them your credit card no.
BUSH IS A PROUD LIAR! Not only did he lie about the MONETARY facts in front of us (e.g. $200 billion then $300 billion is an infinite estimate, so he totally distorted the facts at the very least) but he definitely lied about the AMERICAN PEOPLE who created and planned Social Security. He dismissed their hard work and smart planning by saying that they didn't foresee the growth of our elderly (they did!) and other changes (they predicted all of them almost perfectly!). Imagine donig a good job planning the future, dying, then having some bozo say that you actually didn't have ANY foresight about the future. THAT BOZO TURN-COAT IS GEORGE W. BUSH! Is there suddenly some rule against the press calling our president a liar when he obviously is one?
The author of the article above acknowleges "...big lies," about Social Security more passively, less directly to the president's own words.
Did the press forget to call Clinton a liar? I don't think so...and Clinton's lies had nothing to do with federal MONEY or hardworking AMERICAN PEOPLE, the ENVIRONMENT or WAR, like Bush's lies do. We all lie, but some lies have much different moral and legal consequences.
Why do bloggers exist? Because the PRESS is in cahoots with MONEY and WAR. Why are Americans complacent about our lying press and government? Because we are squeezed and we want cheap goods and more money to spend, spend, spend!!!!!!!!
GREED IS RUNNING THIS NATION.
I just heard today on PUBLIC RADIO, not PRIVATE PRESS, that Halliburton and G.E. do business in Iran. That's illegal because Iran sponsers terrorism. They get around the law...
You may have to register for the article above, but it's good free reading for awhile without having to give them your credit card no.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Expecting a boy!
Call it woman's intuition or just luck, but I felt that I was carrying a boy. An ultrasound confirmed that yesterday and my husband and I are excited and proud (-: Our child's name mean's "God's gift" and that sums up how awed we are at this little one's presence.
Even though I thought it was a boy, and wasn't letting myself fantasize about having a girl, I'm realizing I'd let girl in a little bit. Especially when it comes to yoga. I plan on massaging our baby and putting him in gentle yoga postures to help his bones grow strong and keep his organs healthy, but I realized I was imagining having a little girl beside me in yoga class! It almost seems wrong and way too domineering to take a little boy to yoga when he's 3 years old. I'm sure I'll do it once, but if he doesn't like it there's no way I can take him back! And if he does like it should I feel guilty for it? Am I feminizing our boy? Actually, yoga is both "masculine" and "feminine," a beautiful balance of force and peace, peace and force. In most red states I would feel guilty for taking a boy to yoga class--but luckily I live in a far more enlightened blue state. At least, we'll see...
Even though I thought it was a boy, and wasn't letting myself fantasize about having a girl, I'm realizing I'd let girl in a little bit. Especially when it comes to yoga. I plan on massaging our baby and putting him in gentle yoga postures to help his bones grow strong and keep his organs healthy, but I realized I was imagining having a little girl beside me in yoga class! It almost seems wrong and way too domineering to take a little boy to yoga when he's 3 years old. I'm sure I'll do it once, but if he doesn't like it there's no way I can take him back! And if he does like it should I feel guilty for it? Am I feminizing our boy? Actually, yoga is both "masculine" and "feminine," a beautiful balance of force and peace, peace and force. In most red states I would feel guilty for taking a boy to yoga class--but luckily I live in a far more enlightened blue state. At least, we'll see...
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Who Would Jesus bomb?
Who Would Jesus bomb?
Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Where's the major press coverage for this strong Christian voice? Why does our press only cover the radical, hateful Christian spokesmen? I did a web search and the only major press outlet to cover this was Air America Radio's blog. That paucity of press coverage is a national SHAME.
The mainstream press won't allow a strong, liberal, Christian opinion to be shared with the American people. It puts corporate America in danger, of course.
WAKE UP AMERICA--CORPORATE BULLIES ARE RUNNING THIS GOVERNMENT AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MOST PEOPLE, OUR ENVIRONMENT, OR ANYTHING BUT GETTING MORE ALMIGHTY DOLLARS! Bush's "moral" claims are a complete sham, anyone who buys it is either clueless, a biggot, or is being paid off somehow. He was elected by the greedy, the haters, and the misled.
Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Where's the major press coverage for this strong Christian voice? Why does our press only cover the radical, hateful Christian spokesmen? I did a web search and the only major press outlet to cover this was Air America Radio's blog. That paucity of press coverage is a national SHAME.
The mainstream press won't allow a strong, liberal, Christian opinion to be shared with the American people. It puts corporate America in danger, of course.
WAKE UP AMERICA--CORPORATE BULLIES ARE RUNNING THIS GOVERNMENT AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MOST PEOPLE, OUR ENVIRONMENT, OR ANYTHING BUT GETTING MORE ALMIGHTY DOLLARS! Bush's "moral" claims are a complete sham, anyone who buys it is either clueless, a biggot, or is being paid off somehow. He was elected by the greedy, the haters, and the misled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Like a true Lib. You do not get it. "Family" IS a heterosexual privlilege. Joe and Steve are NOT mom and Dad. I do not care if one of them wears a dress.
"Marriage" IS not our exclusive privilege. A gay guy can get married if they choose to. To a WOMAN.
"Legal" does not make killing babys ok. You just feel better about it.
Being called a liberal is not disparaging, so thanks. I think you don't "get" what it means to live in a democracy. Equality between people does not embrace privilege for some classes over others. America supposedly aspires to be a classless society, although I'm feeling that less and less. To narrow the definition and privilege of "family" to just Mom and Dad leaves out a heck of a lot of hetero American situations (say, single Dads). You are further inspired to separate homosexual unions from heterosexual unions for hidden reasons (whether they are based in religious bias, fear of association, or just a need for superiority). On your website you espouse separate but equal treatment of gays which is just a thin veil for separatists, racists and biggots.
You define marriage as only a man and a woman, rather than the union of two lovers, and then offer that gays are "free" to deny who they are by conforming to your narrow definition of marriage. Alas, you conclude, marriage is not a privilege for straight people. This is absolutely irrational. That's like saying that the Jews, who were stripped of the privilege of German citizenship, could have just gained the privilege by converting to Christianity and adopting Nazism--thereby German citizenship was not a privilege. Same logic. By the way, Hitler also separated homosexuals from "civilized" society.
Damn, dividing people into classes and different privileges is such a wonderful thing to do, isn't it?! Hey, I don't think liberals should do it either--but at least we're motivated to do it in order to help the disenfrachised, not to actually disenfranchise people.
I don't know anyone who thinks abortions are "ok." I just wish our society had more condemnation for war, domestic abuse, and economic corruption as we do for women who have abortions. Jesus did.
The difference between you and me is that I think the moral responsibility for having or not having an abortion belongs to each pregnant woman--it's between her and G_d. If we collectively decide to take that private, legal, moral choice away from her, then I believe that you, me and the government become responsible for her health and that growing child. She loses ownership of her own health (pro-life men and women really don't consider this) and I call it slavery to the state. Do you really want responsibility for that? If you advocate that abortion should be illegal, you cannot avoid making a pregnant woman's body the property of the state. If everyone's okay with that, then I'm going to advocate that men who make women pregnant out of wedlock should be sterilized by the state until they can prove that they are married. That would be equal and fair--upon the occurance of an unplanned pregnancy, each of the responsible parties would become the property of the state. It's very Brave New Worldish, don't you think?
Very few "pro-lifers" really think about how intrusive their position is--they just don't want anyone to kill the fetus. Well, neither do I, and that's why I support birth control, good relationship skills, and a healthy economy (heathlcare, living wages). Yet nature ends the life of fetuses all the time, as do people who want perfect children or a certain gender (morally questionable), as did quite a few conservative hypocrites I grew up with who publicly claimed that they were against abortion but arranged it for their 16-year old daughters (reprehensible [very little makes me angrier than this!]), and you'll hopefully never have it happen to your loved ones.
As it is, plenty of unplanned children are waiting for us to help them; where is our concern for them? Our compassion for them? Frankly, I don't trust abortion-banning societies with children or pregnant women--I think that most pro-life anger is all comfy, do-nothing, idealistic bullshit that has nothing to do with supporting life at all--and the whole-lotta pointing our fingers at women won't make us a better society. To me, a pro-lifer is a whiny hypocrite who spends a lot of time expecting other people to behave much better than they do, yet does nothing to improve relationships or conditions within a community (that's some liberal's job). But that's my own twisted experience of hundreds of people, nothing personal.