Saturday, December 30, 2006

What Milestone?

It is very difficult for me to believe that a truly religious, follower of Christ would utter these words:

Saddam Hussein's execution comes at the end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops. Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. "">

Saddam's execution is a milestone for Iraq's very democracy?

"Justified," organized, institutional, governmental murder is still murder--it is my belief that a civil society does not have the moral authority to choose to end the life of anyone (I do think this can be a personal, private individual and moral decision in a couple of circumstances). Although I am gratified to see Hussein suffer what he did to others, that suffering was short-lived and is over now. I would much rather have him suffer the humiliation of living daily in a 12 x 12 foot room for the rest of his natural life. We could all watch him suffer on the internet. Saddam's life-in-prison cam.

It makes no sense to me that a country would rule to kill anyone and call it justice. How do we, or they, derive any sense of moral order from that example? For me, executions have no moral, civil, social, or spiritual place in our universe. Saddam's publically sanctioned execution is a only going to add energy to violence and the love of death and killing (terrorists' values)--sadly, I believe that affects every one of us--whether we are for or against executions.



Christopher Hitchins points out that the execution of Hussein follows a long Iraqi tradition of murdering the former head of state, so Iraq is following that muderous tradition, it miserably pales as a milestone in a new direction of American-style democracy...

My husband also pointed out how the court "missed an opportunity" to change history...the execution ruling did not permit ANYONE, even the president of Iraq, to commute Hussein's death sentence. That is not anything like our Republic--even though we've provided diplomatic cheerleaders for this court and its decisions. The anti-death penalty KURDISH president could have commuted Hussein's sentence to life, but he was not given that historic, peace-making opportunity by the Iraqi court.

From his op-ed Keeping faith with a bloody tradition:

"It would have been no offense to justice if Hussein had been sentenced to spend the rest of his days in prison without the possibility of parole, but it would represent a break with that sanguinary tradition. And it might be no bad thing if Americans, especially those who supported the breaking of his death grip on Iraqi society, found ways of conveying their distaste for this rushed and vindictive -- and partial -- version of a process of reckoning that ought to have been sober, meticulous and untainted."


Friday, December 22, 2006

An Inconvenient Holiday

I just saw the movie in the comfort of my own flourescently lit home and will be passing along the DVD to someone with a bigger house than the apartment I live in (perhaps I should feel proud, except for the population density aspect of it!). I was thinking that this is going to be a big holiday gift/viewing time.

I was just pondering the truth of the movie in my experience over the last 15 years. The summer's were really hot when I was a child in Missouri, but England never was. I went to England in July every four years growing up. I was always cold and sometimes had to buy warmer jackets, clothes or shoes during the summer time visits. The country had a comedy program called something like Rising Damp, and that's what it was, COLD rising damp, all summer long, except on those rare occasions several random mid summer days (or day during my visit, if I was lucky) when the sun would come out for a few minutes at noon. I once went windsailing on a beautiful summer day in a full rubber suit, and I was still cold.

My cousin got married in July last summer and we spent every day in the sweltering heat, rain or no rain. That is a STARK contrast to my experiences as a child and teenager. The heatwave was unheard of for my 69 year-old English mother who was suffering incredibly, like she does here when its hot--but England doesn't normally have air-conditioning--especially in lovely seaside hotels that rent out their entire business to wedding parties. So it was exhausting and the cheerful alcoholics were much less so, and my 1 year-old child has always slept swaddled or in pajamas with feet--but he slept in England in a diaper! That was seriously strange for me--England was always a place where I needed MORE clothes. I was amazed and thankful that he slept at all, considering his SoCal little body has hardly experienced any night out of the range of 68 - 74 degrees F.

I also thought about the Mississippi flood that devastated my best friend's wedding in 1992.

Al Gore's got a point--and I couldn't be more concerned about Iceland and the Arctic. Don't melt, please! We have to start freezing them, help!

Give peace a...@#$%#?!

Okay, a friend sent this to me but it really hits home in a wierdly unrelated way.

Last night, my husband helped me see that there's nothing I can do to stop a parent when he or she speaks disrespectfully to their child in anger and in resentment. All we can do is work on our own language and style with our own child, in order to raise a healthy child and to encourage others to follow our example (that's work enough).
So, in that vein, how much can we do to stop war? How about modeling peace? Have loving sex today and maybe Princeton will measure the positive effect!

and they do blog.

Thursday, December 21, 2006


Due to misleading advertising by the New Republic (they offered a digital subscription of 9.99 but charged me 29.99 instead), they have responsibly refunded my money and I got to read Andrew Sullivan's article for free. Giggle.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

How does her garden grow?

I actually paid the New Republic to read Andrew Sullivan's "Mary Cheney: Quite Contrary" and I was with him as he tore apart the conservative war against gays and campaign for hate (and the "take no position" morally bankrupt position), until the last section where he congratulates Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice for being gay humanitarians.

Then he drove me over the edge when he suggested that Mary Cheney and her partner's family situation might be the "real pioneers of a new [gay marriage/family accepting] world."

Talk about silver bells (thumb screws) and cockleshells (very personal torture)...

I don't think there's a better illustration of the hateful hypocrisy that this administration has administered on the American public than this one.

Their example for us is, "What's okay for us and our families is MORALLY WRONG and ILLEGAL for you (or your relative or neighbor)."

And Andrew Sullivan tells that story, succinctly.

He points out that the REALITY of gay life is undermining the politics of fear that are being used against gays on the right, but then he positions Mary Cheney as an example of a REAL pioneer.

Imagine the press if that had been Rosy O'Donnel getting pregnant, or your superintendant's daughter.

When I first heard that Mary Cheney was pregnant I thought, "Wow, she gets a royal pass on this one."

Mary Cheney is so far inside the protective layers of elitism and this Presidency that I thought (I'm crazy like a fox), "Hmm, I wonder if they actually found a doctor to combine both their eggs [we've done this with female mice, which is a very underreported fact]"

So, other than that possibility, how in the world is Mary Cheney a "real" pioneer, Mr. Sullivan?

I am absolutely sure that there are hundreds of REAL pioneers that have paid more than their fair share of the REAL price for pioneering their gay marriage, their gay parenthood, or simply their gay lifestyle amidst the REAL, LEGAL and "morality"-driven threats that Sullivan's conservative "humanitarians" have looked the other way on whilst they rode that feverishly anti-gay agenda into the White House.

I will certainly point out to my children in every way possible that Mary Cheney was not a pioneer, and that nearly every single person around her fights others for what she wants for her own life. And if Cheney wants that title, she could certainly step up the rhetoric in favor of those that share her ambitions.

The silence is deafening.


Friday, December 15, 2006

Chanukah bugs

I've had an amazing time today celebrating Chanukah with my husband and son--blessings, songs, candles, dessert gifts. My Christian family has sent us gifts that have involved such thoughtfulness and love they remind me of the few times a year we get to spend together.

But this week I let myself get into an argument over Israel with a blogger who hates all religions. He argues that Jews use God to kill.

I know in my heart that the real issues here are politics, and that any maniacal soul can use religion, and in particular the Bible, to justify evils and triumphs.

I think I just let myself feel belittled for my religious choice, or my religion got belittled. Wow, I will certainly try harder to keep my act clean on that score.

I've been rather tough on Christians lately. I sincerely apologize to anyone that I may have left feeling judged for their religious choice. I do not wish to condemn a religion or a belief system, and I will try to keep my analyses very specific to certain acts and deeds.

Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa!


Sunday, December 03, 2006

Mr. Webb, we thank you

Above Eleanor Clift notes the bullying conversational tactics of our President, and George F. Will's Republican blindness...

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Did you think that wacky views on contraception don't matter?

It does when ideological rightwingers are appointed to head agencies that distribute family "planning" services to the poor. Bush just appointed the medical director for an anti-abortion, anti-contraception agency with apt name "Women's Concern":

Women's Concern...has a policy against dispensing contraception, even to married women. Its web site claims that the distribution of contraceptive drugs or devices is "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness."

Dr. Keroack has also pushed the quack-science argument that sex with multiple partners alters brain chemistry in a way that makes it harder for women to form bonding relationships.

The head of the FDA, on the other hand, only opposes distributing contraception to UNmarried women. Ugh.

How many Americans oppose distributing contraceptives to the poor? Ten? Granted, such a position with some may not be motivated by nobel reasons, but I don't judge what people think, only what they advocate and do (or willfully ignore).

I think all these cultural arguments come down to this...what are WE, as a nation, willing to take responsibility for?

I wager that most Americans are willing to take responsibility for funding preventative measures that will reduce the number of unplanned pregancies.

Contraception may not improve our behavior, but it does reduce abortions.

So this anti-contraception issue is a big problem. Someone anonymous left a misleading comment below that argues that contraception leads to more abortions. Here is an article that profiles the context of why there is currently a religiously based fight AGAINST contraception of all kinds:

This gives you a good indication of the lack of accurate statistical analysis and skewed logic involved in the method of the article's argument:

"The fact that an increasing number of people engaged in pre-marital sex without even using contraception also factored into the increase in abortions. Paradoxically, the contraceptive mentality does not foster increased contraception use or perfect use of it. Instead it fosters increased pre-marital sex, with or without contraception."

So even people who don't use contraception are having abortions that are blamed on the use of contraception? Huh?

If this guy/gal can show me that people who use contraception have as many abortions, or more, than people who don't use contraception, I'll buy the argument.

Otherwise, he/she is skewing statistical data in a twisted attempt to blame a tool that helps PREVENT unwanted pregnancies and LIMIT the number of children families conceive. It is beyond the pale, it seems to me, to ask MARRIED people or even IRRESPONSIBLE people to stop using contraception so that couples may bear the CONSEQUENCES of sex. How much more personal can the right's politics get? When did they appoint themselves the judge and jury of every intimate encounter? What's more, those consequences take a bigger toll on women's lives and well-being so I see this attack as very centered on our livelihoods.

But most of all, why is limiting contraception more important than educating people about emotional and physical health and relationships in an honest and family-friendly way? There are also differences in the way men and women see the role of sex in relationships that hardly gets addressed in a productive way. We can educate people without stepping on American's private choices with extreme policies. I'm all for our Presidents and Congresspeople modeling and discussing their joy in committed, monogamous relationships. Tell me when that happens.

Obviously, contraception does not cause more abortions, more sex causes more abortions. Uncommited sex happens when people are searching for something that they don't already receive: attention, love, respect, non-sexual affection, a mirror of who they are and can be.

It's also very difficult to statistically argue a direct causation that the invention of birth control alone is what caused more sexual interest considering that the 1960s and 70s also saw huge social changes, splintering of families, higher work production for men and women, and especially, the dissolution of close communities.

When our culture's values become more centered on the wholistic health of children, spouses, and all families, we will become a nation that does not need to fight battles against abortion and contraception--in short--we will all respect those very personal boundaries.

We should all be allowed our own moral choices, thank you.

Bush's words have no credibility

So he says that he will not withdraw from Iraq, no matter what people persuade him to do, he sounds like a child, but in any case it's only half believable because he said there were weapons of mass destruction, that we would be liberating Iraq, that we were bringing Democracy to the Middle East, that he would never get rid of Rumsfeld, bla, bla, bla...

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Did you know Nebraska has...

one of the best PUBLIC educational system's in the U.S., if not the world?

It shows, below is Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (I do respect Republicans who speak the truth). Thank you, Shmog, my husband, for pointing this out to me!

I should be taking a nap, but alas, I'm on the computer.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Expecting moral purity and a suppressed sexuality has not worked in thousands of years, for either sex.

This above is what I said to Bill Gnade, of Contratimes. I accuse him of placing the responsibility for fixing sexual problems in our culture on women’s behavior instead of equally placing this responsibility on men.

Gnade replies "As for your suggestion that thousands of years of moral posturing have failed to bring some sort of peace in the battle of the sexes, I first want to ask how it is that anyone can know that."

I think the whole debate we're having is based on the premise that there is something unhealthy about a lot of relationships between men and women. That is at least one small way how we know that moral "posturing" has not brought peace to our species (in more ways than this).

"It seems to be thoroughly obvious that holiness, grace, love, mercy, compassion and chastity have never harmed a soul."

I agree that genuinely modeling these qualities does not hurt people, and I think our culture has yet to adopt a global way to teach them in meaningful ways. I am specifically asking you to apply the requirements of chastity to both sexes equally, if you are to ask it of either sex.

"But what your remark actually reminds me of is a G. K. Chesterton quote: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." Moral purity (which has always eluded me, but I try, irrespective of all the cultural resistance against it and all the societal excuses provided daily) can never be wrong, it can only be difficult. It is always easiest to be morally lazy; it is far easier to be a lecherous man than it is to be a gentleman; it is far easier to be mean than it is to be kind."

I agree with Chesterton's comment, I believe that many leading Christians in this country find it difficult to follow Jesus' example of humility, compassion, grace and mercy toward others. How many prominent ministers teach people NOT to judge others, and to treat "sinners" with dignity and love? Jesus did not judge and label, instead he had loving dialogues with troubled people and led everyone to find G-d inside themselves. In essence, to love themselves, G-d, and others. His tools and rhetoric did not use fear, guilt or shame to change people. That, to me, is something like moral purity. Such a vision of love and holiness among men moves my Jewish soul.

As for me, I would never set moral purity, or any kind of perfection, as a goal. I have four encompassing moral principles that I try to uphold on a daily basis, and I'm lucky if I get two under my belt. But I keep trying, every day. I continue to overcome the effects of being expected to be perfect and to never make mistakes; I believe that this kind of thinking destroys joy, life and love.

"Bottom line is this: I blame men for the plight of women; and I blame some women for letting other women oppress all women with male-defined ideals of personhood."

I truly can't follow that trail of shifting responsibilities--women let women oppress women with male ideas? What? When there are unhealthy relationships, I blame the men who emotionally and physically abuse women, and I blame the women who emotionally and physically abuse men, and I nearly always blame the families and the governments who fail to seek the necessary education and tools to stop abuse. Yes, I want justice! But frankly, all this blaming and judging does not solve our problems or bring justice to relationships. I would much rather focus on the solutions, and for me, those solutions don't involve guilt, shame and the resulting cycle of self-hate, victimization and blame. I believe that people respond eagerly and heal more quickly with hope, responsibility, health, self-knowlege and self-love, learning to love, empathy, and emotional intelligence.

"By having sex with men who have not even earned the right to touch a woman, women are rewarding behavior that, if not blatantly bad, is ignoble, immature, shallow, insincere, and often corrupt and ridiculous. But nowhere in this am I suggesting that men need not become better men. I am saying they have no reason to improve themselves, because they can find what they want so easily in women who have been duped into thinking that their bodies are toys (and that medicine can rescue them from being so treated)."

You are strongly suggesting that sex is a reward from women to men. That seems rather one-way to me. In my culture, and in the context of marriage, sex is actually characterized as a reward to women from men. I dare say that sex generally rewards us both (more so in a healthy relationship, of course).

You are saying that corrupt, insincere, ignoble men should become better men, but will not do so, nor should we expect them to do so, until women stop having sex with them; aka tempting them. You are shifting men's responsibility for improving their behavior onto a change in the behavior of women. Why can't we expect men to say "no" in the face of temptation? That's like saying that thieves have no reason to stop stealing until mobsters stop funding their exploits.

"Why be a gentleman if women are encouraged – truly – to be self-determined harlots in the cult in which we now live, granting nearly free access to their wondrous bodies for the smallest price?"

Why be honest if everyone around you lies? Why pay for your groceries when there's a riot? Why love your kids when you weren't loved? I feel quite comfortable expecting men to be gentlemen in the face of unhealthy temptations. I believe in the Golden Rule.

In many situations, if a gentleman doesn't ask for sex, even a "harlot" won't engage in it. But why call women harlots (now that's an ad hominem) when doing so signals to men that women who have sex with them, in the same manner that they have sex with women, don't deserve to be treated with dignity? "Well honey, I might be sinning but you're the harlot, so don't let the door hit you on the way out."

"I am saying that sexual sorrows are like certain diseases: I am not blaming the victim for having the disease, but I might blame that victim who chooses to ignore the only known cure."

In unhealthy relationships, I don't see women as victims any more than men--at least no more than the general situations that are unfair to women because we're paid less, considered less intelligent, and have a greater challenge to balance children and forms of work (which can be activated by such unhealthy encounters). Women are often the victims of discrimination and rape, but not promiscuous sex. Promiscuous sex is a mutual decision. Just because our culture doesn't expect men to say "no" doesn't mean we don't have to expect men to say no. We are not victims of commercial and pornographic images of women, we are just compared to them. We all have to deal with being compared to better or stereotypical images of ourselves.

I realize that you state that you don’t want to make abortion illegal, but I did not accuse you of wanting to make abortion illegal. I apologize if my statement seemed to imply that. I was talking about the effect of more fatherless children being a result of making abortion illegal. However, for someone who ostensibly supports legal abortions I find it notable that you viciously attack the motives of other people who want to keep abortion legal, assuming that their reasons are less moral than yours. I do not recognize the feelings that I have about the act of abortion in the characterizations you make about pro-choice feminists in the your Kicking at the Darkness blog, and I am a pro-choice feminist. I think you’re building straw men. As you request, I will say so on your blog.

I do apologize for calling you extremely judgmental. I never want to judge people, just their ideas and words, as you so eloquently say.

I did not find your misunderstanding of my motherhood status as insulting, I have a lot of respect for single mothers, as you do.

I believe that this will be my last comment about your blog and our argument on my blog. I much prefer having less contentious blog experiences. I look forward to reading your response.

Thank you for your kind comments, and I hope for much love and good experiences in your life.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Profile Identity

This is going to sound funny, but I have to hide my Urban Pink profile because although it doesn't show another blog I don't want to share, my Urban Pink profile shows up on the blog I don't want to share. I may figure out a way to fix this but for now, I can't share my profile. Bummer.

Update: I fixed it, yeah! Thanks for your offer, Vigilante.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Abortion arguments

I was thinking of continuing an argument with Contratimes about access to abortion and his views on the responsibilities of women, but I've come to a very quiet place about this issue.

It is my belief that safe and legal abortion should be accessible to every woman, young and old. For the poor, that means free abortions. I don't fear it because G_d and/or biology chose women to bear children, with good reason, I assume. Most of the time, about 80% of the time in this country, women choose to carry their pregnancies to term. Sometimes, biology ends our pregnancies. I know lots of women who have had more miscarriages than children. I will never accept that a fetus is an independent person from its mother, and until we learn to grow babies without mothers (G-d forbid), this will be my view.

I believe that a pregnancy is a physical and spiritual relationship between the mother, the father (if she's lucky), her child, and her G_d. Mother and child are symbiotic, not separate human beings. I believe it really is the most precious, spiritual relationship I will ever know. I grieve for the mothers who do not feel this relationship, and for those who do, yet are still compelled to have an abortion, or who have suffered a miscarriage. I do grieve for the tragic loss of human life, whether from miscarriages, or from abortions.

If one, any one, coerces, manipulates, threatens, intimidates or supports legal roadblocks to a woman seeking abortion, they are replacing their moral conscience for hers. No matter the law, or our moral judgements, she must bear the weight of her decision alone, and with G_d, and hopefully, with her family.

As Contratimes said, most women are built for having children. Most of us want to have children. That does not mean we are required to have children, that does not mean we are limited to that function, that does not mean that all women can have children, nor should, and that does not mean that we are required to risk having children every time we desire sex. Most of all, that does not mean that any man or woman can replace a woman's moral choices about her reproductive future, with their own.

I'm tired of being angry about this issue, tired of feeling resentful that a whole movement calls women murderers for ending a symbiotic life, and that voices scant support for preventative contraception and emotional education. For the very few women who abort callously, I cannot have anything but compassion and sympathy for a human being who has found herself in such an unfeeling position. I must work on finding sympathy and compassion for those who believe that unintended pregnancies that end in abortion is the most pressing cultural problem in this country. I think our abortion rate is a symptom of two much larger problems--emotional intelligence and dwindling communal institutions. Making abortion rare involves drastically improving our tool sets for our familial relationships and our communities.


Govering Reform, let's all contact our leaders to push for it!!!

I called Jane Harmon to let her know I'm for banning lobbying and for public financing of campaigns with restrictions on advertising.

By the way, I think Thanksgiving should be about love and family, not pilgrims and turkeys. For the first time this year I'm really disturbed by the puritanical imagery and sacrificial turkeys. We have a dark and sinful history with Indian Americans and Thanksgiving symbols just gloss right over that. All I see are Pilgrims at the table with big grins and their fingers crossed.


Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Abortion Statistics

I'm not sure of the accuracy or authority of this website, but I did find these statistics interesting. I was born in the U.K. and adopted there when abortion was legal. My birth mother was able to live and give birth in a Catholic home for unwed mothers.

Coming out

I put one of my paintings as my profile picture. Inspired by Contratimes' page design.


I just added a larger photo of my 15 in. x 15 in. acrylic painting/collage entitled Chain. The black and white images are 1) natural gas wells in Wyoming, 2) a New York cathedral and office building, and 3) a Dove advertisement of a mother and child.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Israel, McCain, etc.

I am very supportive of Israel's Jewish statehood. It is the only predominantly Jewish country in the world and it deserves world protection. However, I am severely critical of their policies toward Palestinians and so this is why I'm not voicing dissent about the Al-Jazeera network (yet).

I see that internationally focused network as the first to offer a voice to 3rd world atrocities that the first world is very much responsible for--whether or not there's another side to the story. To me, violence is no excuse for institutional violence.

Nothing teaches me about how we are all responsible for each other like my Jewish faith, and I think that even a skewed showing of how Israel treats Palestinians will help put pressure on Israel to act with peace as it's goal, not constant war.

In my mind, we need to stop the cycle of violence NOW. Israel's only peaceful choice is to immediately stop extrajudicial killings, concede predominantly Arab areas to Arab control, build the strongest and smartest defenses, and hunker down for peace. I also believe that Israel has a historical and moral responsibility to help build Palestine so that Palestine offers a viable economy for its people--so those people have a choice between a better than barely-sustainable-life and war with Israel. Israel is outnumbered by hostile Arabs, and even though the Arab world profits mightily off of the existence of Israel as their scapegoat for any number of abuses to their own people, the Arab world will have the full force of world judgement if they refuse to help Israel build Palestine.

If this seachange of attitude of Israel toward her neighbors doesn't happen, nothing will change. If such a seachange changed nothing in the Middle East, Israel would be a shining example of a country that espoused peace with the enduring support of the civilized world.

My husband and I both believe that its too late for John McCain to run for President. He drank too much Bush kool-aid and he's all BS. We saw his speech before GOPAC and many of his points about problems went unanswered by him. He also made a very good point about Republicans, "We believe the government should only help those who can't help themselves." My assumption being that if you can't pay for it, they won't.

This made me think of this, "Yeah, we Republicans have no problem with that CEO making 800 times his part-time administrative assistant, but f*@k that assistant thinking that the government should pay for her kid's health insurance."

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Hoyer looks like a Republican

So I guess he's a Democratic moderate, but his Iraq rhetoric sounds just like GWB (the Great White Boob)

My interpretation of Pelosi's role in this is that she went to bat for the folks that elected Democrats by supporting Murtha, particularly the anti-war Democrats.

If she keeps thinking about us voters we're in a good place.

All is well in the House of the People.


I want serious reform

I have a vision of our government and it puts a lot of people out of work.

Career lobbyists.

I have a vision of our government and it makes about 600 people financially poorer.


I have a vision of our government and it makes about 600 people less powerful.

Earmarks have to be debated.

I have a vision of our government and it makes elections boring.

Publically funded direct mail, commercials and websites. No PAC or party advertising allowed.

Anyone with me on this?

I want radical reform NOW.

James Carville

GOP Mole,

That's the netroot gossip.

It makes a lot of sense. How in the world could you marry someone diametrically opposed to your worldview, unless you are both for sh**?

So, he's either BS, or he's a mole.

Either way I will never trust a word out of his mouth again.

This isn't the first SERIOUS smack he's made at Democrats, and I've often found him a poor representative of Democratic ideas. He stays quiet a lot, he doesn't defend, he's not a truth seeker. He's as likely to repeat RNC talking points as anyone.

The truth is out.

Let's stop Democratic cannibalism

Dear Readers,

Please do your part to contact Democratic leadership (the DCCC, the DNC, Congressional folks, talking heads in the press, JAMES CARVILLE) and tell them to call off the dogs after Howard Dean.

For some reason, I can only suspect envy, greed or something more dire, the Democratic leadership wants nothing to do with Howard Dean.

This is a poison in our ranks.

The statistics show that Howard Dean's leadership and activism in small towns has reinvigorated Democrats across this nation and brought more votes to more Democrats in more areas than 2004.

Nothing could do more to quell this sea change than Democrats bickering over who should lead us.

Frankly, Howard Dean did a great job of staying humble. It was the DCCC that jumped into the spotlight even before the votes were all cast. Good for us! Just don't kick our dogsbody.

I can't believe that James Carville is going around calling Dean "Rumfeldian" and other such unmerited, unchallenged nonsense.

The New Republic has taken the position that Netroots won us this election, as has Nancy Pelosi by backing Murtha's leadership position, and in my mind I think we need more friends not less--we all did this together. From my perspective, the DCCC was the money, the DNC was the people.

So what the HELL are James Carville and his elders trying to accomplish by dividing us? Is this a class issue? The elite vs. the working class? It's looking that way to this elitist populist.

Defining activists as terrorists, the House goes over the line

This was passed by a voice vote, suspicious in every way, there is no accountability for who voted for yet another even scarier transgression against our civil rights.

What in G-d's name makes our congressmen think that our laws against vandalism, theft, stalking and destruction of property, are not enough to prosecute these felons who go over the line to save animals?

I suspect that this is just a problem for police, e.g. catching the criminals, not our congressman or our courts.

Disgusting, this Congress is suspending our civil rights over ISSUES ALREADY HAVE SOLUTIONS.

This is the most irresponsible House to date. The Democrats can't take control soon enough.

By the way, the Press is hereby judged by me to be absolutely Republican-controlled--one party biased. They have it out for Democrats, period, and especially those who are opposed to war.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006


I'm about to watch some TV during the day which I never do--but my husband and I do not want to watch TV tonight. I got very interested in the Friday Night Lights blurp from Vigilante since I am from a small town.

Does anyone out there watch Prisonbreak? We love it. There is a relentless consipiracy coming from the Vice President's office (well, now she's President since she killed him off) that involves the FBI and the criminal justice system. Basically, an innocent man was convicted of killing the VP's brother and has escaped prison (with the help of his brother) and is on the run, along with some other less innocent men. Nearly all the people who have tried to prove his innocence have wound up dead.

I've often thought that the lawlessness and relentless killing that occurs on this show is somehow, at least philosophically, reflective of the current VP. Anybody else had that thought?


Murtha it should be

Dear Democrats and Liberals,

I want to congratulate you and myself for letting go of ideological purism in order to support moderate Democrats this fall. Although I hate compromising, especially on choice, I am proud to know that when push comes to shove, our country's health and security come before any personal, social issue.

Check out the liars on Hannity, they're trying to call Murtha a leftist:

A small step for accountability

Wow, it's stuff like this that shows just how bad things have gone under Bush/Republican rule. I'm amazed that the Democrats are fixing it already, baby steps...

Oversight in Iraq

Sunday, November 12, 2006

What now...

I've been away for the weekend, completely out of the news cycle and I watched some political TV and read some articles tonight. I can't help but bristle when I see that people are saying the Democrats won without a message.

Democrats had a message of reform, change, accountability. The press didn't tell anyone.

Luckily, the voters heard it through Howard Dean (e-mail), Move-on, and the internet.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Bush is making me laugh

So, I'm willing to give him kudos for not announcing a major policy shift right before the election. Although, that would have been a catch 22 for him (America would have seen it as manipulative). But:

1. It was such a stupid thing for him to say that Rumsfeld would stay on his whole tenure that I have a hard time believing that he didn't believe what he was saying at the time.
2. Everyone knows yesterday shocked the crap out of the Republican power structure and they made Rumsfeld the fallguy. Well, he did deserve to be the fall guy.

Howard Dean did it!!!

This man, this practical, passionate, self-possessed liberal man, lead this country state by state into a Huge Democratic Victory.

Kudos to the screamer, let us all scream hooray!!!

A good morning!! And better ones await!

Congratulations Democrats, Congratulations America!

Monday, November 06, 2006


"The Current Occupant, who is two years and three months away from retirement, was quoted last week as saying, "They can say what they want about me, but at least I know who I am, and I know who my friends are."

A pathetic admission of defeat for one who has owned all three branches of government for the past six years - did he seek power so that he could attain self-knowledge? If so, the price is too high. The beloved country endures a government that merges blithering corruption with murderous incompetence.

Congress, which once spent an entire year investigating a married man's attempt to cover up an illicit act of oral sex, has shown no curiosity whatsoever about a war that the administration elected to wage that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands and led our own people to commit war crimes and squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and degenerated into civil war.

The contrast is deafening. Republicans haven't tolerated much dissent in their ranks, the voice of conscience has not been welcome, and now the herd finds itself on the wrong side of the river. It's discouraging seeing so many people go so wrong all at once. It makes you question the idea that each of us has unlimited potential for good.

Washington is a city where a bill to relax air-pollution standards would be called the Clean Air Act and a bill to protect government officials from war-crimes prosecution would be called the Military Commissions Act, and so a man's statement that he knows who he is and who his friends are needs to be taken as meaning the opposite, a cry for help.

You come to office as a uniter and you wind up doing the opposite. You stand for American values and you wind up defending torture and waste of resources. Knowing who you are is a minimal adult requirement, and you don't get there by being an object of attention. Retirement is recommended. The sooner the better."

Garrison Keiller

Lying and the "family values" party

Vote Tomorrow, VOTE TOMORROW!!

Sunday, November 05, 2006

If Democrats Win, will Bush see them as terrorists?

There was a cartoon that had President Bush carting off Democrats as "enemy combatants" because that's how close his rhetoric is to calling us the enemy, basically calling us terrorists.

I was just walking through my living room and had a vision of watching Bush's face at his first press conference after the Democrats take over both Houses of Congress.


Seething, absolute anger.

And I thought, "Wow, his party has had total control of every branch of government and he still felt the need to take more power for the Presidency...what happens when the entire leadership of Congress stands in opposition to that power grab?"

Pow, Bang.

Just what will happen?

If he had a "mandate" with the close and questionable 2004 election, I guess we have no hope of him accepting that Americans are sending him a message in 2006...

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a bully in the White House (well, we have lots of bullies in the White House actually, I think the heirarchy is Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Bush, Rice), and bullies rarely listen to advice--as our current White House has demonstrated over and over and over...

Rice stumping for Republicans

Okay, I don't really care that she's doing something that other Secretaries of State haven't been seen doing (stumping for their party before an election), yeah, it's irritating and suspect, but I find it really disturbing that she's NOT IN D.C. FIGHTING TERRORISM EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY HOUR ON THE JOB INSTEAD OF campaigning for Repubicans.


Elizabeth Dole is a serial liar

Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), in addition to previous, fantasy-world untruths, said on Meet the Press, "We don't give our candidates around the country talking points..." this was after she quoted someone running for office who was using exactly the talking points that every Republican uses about Iraq. She failed to acknowledge that there is any problem in this war on terrorism. Every time she spoke and said something folksy I said, "That's not true." Isn't she from Kansas? I don't think most people regularly lie in Kansas.

I've wondered, is how Republicans all wind up saying the same thing? Try to log on, it asks for a password.

I know that there was a booklet in the 2004 election that was distributed in Ohio with Republican talking points.

Elizabeth Dole sat in her chair and personally campaigned for Republican individuals around the country, accused Democrats of being comfortable losing Iraq (a total lie, and fails to acknowledge that we are already losing), and spread misinformation and unsubstantiated gossip about Howard Ford.

I had no idea that she was such a partisan, Republican shill.

Oh and, as my observant husband pointed out, if Blacks think an ad is racist, doesn't that ad deserve a second look? Elizabeth Dole's response to an ad showing a white woman asking Harold Ford to call her was "I don't think that's racist, but I respect that some people might."

Is racism a subjective opinion? NO. Racism is when people USE race to insult people, discredit people, hold people down, and you have to have your head buried in the sand of denial and historical amnesia not to even SUSPECT that having a white woman come on to a black political candidate is not using RACISM in the American South. And if we're no longer dealing with the reality of racism and are in the realm of subjective art of racism, then I must assume that Elizabeth Dole is basing her assessment of this ad on her questioning of the intention of the people who created the ad. Yeah, right, I'm sure she's done her homework on that score.

I am hopeful

I have good feelings about Tuesday's election, I have some faith that Americans are recognizing that there needs to be checks and balances, and that they actually see Democrats as a rational force that will at least put the brakes on a skiding Administration. I think it pays that Republicans have been calling us the opposition all these years!

If we don't win it all, I will be seriously shocked and disappointed. Much worse than 2004. Then what?

A slow, painstaking effort to change the way we govern this country. Take the billions of $ out of campaigns, get rid of the voting machines, and ban lobbyists. We should do this anyway.


Pro war, Pro death

It's astounding to me that human civilization has not learned ANYTHING about how to avoid human conflict and violence. Not only is the Iraqi government inciting Sunni violence by condemning Saddam to death, the U.S. is complicit in the death by celebrating it and therefore leaves our own people more vulnerable (and by their measure, "deserving") of that hatred as well.

An individual killing another is understandable when you or others are about to be killed, or when a country is defending its people from a current or planned attack.

But when killing is delivered in such an ordered, calculated way, it becomes part of a culture's philosophy of living.

Killing is endorsed as a civil way of resolving conflict.

May we soon be lifted from this reactionary, hedonistic culture of death and war.

I pray that we will distance ourselves from the tools of our enemy soon.

P.S. Thou shalt not kill

Friday, November 03, 2006

Considering "Anti" rhetoric

Why is it that conservatives are so comfortable saying that they are "anti-abortion" but lack the conviction to say they are "anti-war?"

Shouldn't we all be anti-war? Pro-defense?

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Iraq: Has Osama got that nuke yet?

My husband and I were watching a conservative think tank hawk argue for a change of policy in Iraq last night on the Lehrer Newshour. He sounded somewhat convincing at first, even when he advocated using more troops to essentially "do over" what we've failed (like searching and defending Falluja again, Baghdad properly, leaving troops behind so the insurgents don't take over like they have been, it's maddening).

The guy made some very salient points, like we've been fighting this war with the minimum number of troops possible. The right number to keep it absolutely from spinning out of control, although he said we've constantly been on the edge of the abyss, and the abyss is definitely growing stronger.

But then he lost his mind.

When asked why we should continue this war my husband and I expected him to say that we needed to be in the region to keep terrorists out, or because we need to keep stability in Iraq, or some other such rational sounding, although hard to buy, excuse.

But no. Armchair hawk said that we should stay in Iraq so that our troops won't suffer the emotional trauma of feeling like they lost.

That was his entire rationale for continuing the war.


We should send more troops to fight and die so that our troops FEEL better about winning?

1) Our troops did not f** up this war, our fantasy-driven, "efficiency-theoried" civilian and military leaders did.
2) Apparently, we are not fighting in Iraq for strategic reasons.

Point number 2 brings me to this stark reality:

The "terrorists" are an unpredictable enemy who can use just a few people to cause tremendous harm.

Our entire energy as a nation should be focused on this:

STOPPING and PREVENTING the terrorists from causing tremendous harm.

That involves securing nuclear and chemical weapons in our own and other countries, spying on terrorists, diplomacy with our enemies, and increased police communications and technological prowess all over the world.

Note: Fighting a war in Iraq, or anywhere really, does not prevent 10 or 20 individuals in the U.K., or Spain, or Canada, or Santa Monica, from killing hundreds or thousands of Americans.

If John Kerry were president WE WOULD BE FOCUSED ON ALL OF THE ABOVE, and we'd be doing it legally and with the support of most of the world.

So Dick "F*** YOURSELF" Cheney, we are NOT LUCKY that John Kerry was cheated out of the Presidency.

Iraq may be distracting some terrorists, but certainly not all, and in the meantime we are spending a lot of resources on something that will not help us one wit in the long run. The safety of our future has been severely compromised in Iraq by Bush, his cronies, and the war industries.

It's what we do, not what they say folks, and here comes election day.

Intervention 2006

Another reminder that Bush has lost his mind

Like I said, I'm no fan of Chavez, but yet again the alcholic trait applying to Bush rings true when Andrew Sullivan is calling for an "intervention" this election!!

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

It’s what you do, not what you say...

I think it’s safe to say that John Kerry has done more to help our soldiers be protected in Iraq, and in ways to get them out of Iraq, than nearly anyone in the White House or Republican in Congress.

People know this world is a wreck
We're sick and tired of being politically correct
If I see through it now but I didn't at first
The hypocrites made it worse and worse
Lookin' down their noses at what people say
These are just words and words are okay
It's what you do and not what you say
If you're not part of the future then get out of the way

John Mellencamp, Peaceful World, Uh-Huh

I hear Yoko Ono refer to artists as the "peace industry"

If we, the emotional, explosive, irrational few are the "peace industry" is everyone else part of the war industry? G_d Help Us.

We never hear how much money our politicians GET from companies on TV....

Al Queda, like Bush, wants more war, not less

Read here what you won't find reported in the pro-Republican, pro-WAR news, EVER: Al-Qaeda Wants Republicans to Win

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Did you think Allen was a BULLY before this?

Maybe he bullied his ex-wife? Hey Allen, you made this personal about women...

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Buy the people, Fool the people

Rove and Bush have sullied the phrase, "By the People, For the People."

The administration is beyond the pale in trying to bribe voters into voting for their Republican rubber stamps, they are promising disaster aid in the northeast and grants for better transportation at Ohio airports to help boost votes for Congressional candidates. It's bull that they are using the promise of disaster relief, implying that the region WON'T get it if Democrats are elected, and is absolutely unethical to use the Cabinet to campaign for the Congress, but what's really disgusting and crazy is that people are BELIEVING the promises.

I do not respect Chavez one bit, but when he called Bush an alcoholic, there was something in that...

DON'T believe alcoholics.

DON'T believe the folks who brought you Katrina.

Katrina: Where's the Money?

Saturday, October 28, 2006

I just want to remind the American public that Republicans can't win without lying or cheating

Evidence that Republicans think Terrorism is NOT a threat

CQ Hastert

So here's the situation: It appears that Hastert and Co. hired their own chums (or the biggest bribe) to do the security work to protect Congress from a terrorist attack. Contractors have questioned the quaility of the work and Hastert's guy was bullying investigators.

Here's my question, if you don't care who is building the walls and moat to protect your castle, how big is the threat to your castle??

Maybe bin Laden is dead.

Rumsfeld hamstringing the Army

Ruining America

We've had Republican paranoids tell us that the minority party in Congress is hamstringing our military in Iraq. How? Last week I heard an A.M radio dittohead blaming liberals for hamstringing our military after a caller said a soldier in Iraq reported that they can't kill an Iraqi shooter after he puts his gun down (even if he's shot at them). What?

What trail can we trace to say that Democrats in Congress or liberal Americans have anything to do with PENTAGON POLICIES in Iraq??

How do conservative listeners put aside all logic, observation and rational thought to go along with such ridiculous accusations? It's truly frightening that Americans can buy into such blatent and frankly, stupid, propaganda so easily. Or is it just another excuse for Republicans to blame and bash liberals and Democrats for their own choices and mistakes? Rumsfeld's approval is 12%.

The Army chief asked for $25 billion, Rumsfeld's Pentagon gave him $7 billion. Who's doing the hamstringing?

Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld.

Not enough troops, no exit strategy, not enough money for our troops, and all you reporters "backoff," or else.

Does he bully the president as well?


Thursday, October 26, 2006

The Dark Side of Ohio

You know, it may seem like Republican's have conceded DeWine's seat since they are no longer paying for his ads (I knew this over a week ago) but it may also be that they own the voting machine's and commercials just won't make any difference for Sherrod Brown....

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Fraud in Arizona

Maybe Arizona is the only state in the Union where voter fraud has sporadically occurred, someone find that evidence for me.

But I just read the Supreme Court's opinion and it basically says to me:

"We'll allow the state to put up roadblocks to voting and see what the fallout is."

Let's just see how much disenfranchise occurs.

Okay, so when some older folks are lining up to ask why they couldn't submit a normal vote (does the phrase, "Provisional Ballot," ring a bell folks?) will the Supreme Court pay attention then?

Did the Supreme Court make sure that Floridians weren't disenfranchised in 2000? No.

Did the Supreme Court make sure that Ohioans and Floridians weren't disenfranchised in 2004? No.

Arizona Voter ID Supreme Court Opinon "Given the importance of the constitutional issues, the Court wisely takes action that will enhance the likelihood that they will be resolved correctly on the basis of historical facts rather than speculation."

When does historical fact begin to count, Justice Stephens?????????????? Wise? Blind and deaf.

Are even the court's "moderates" so isolated in their ivory tower that they do not see what direction fraud is actually coming from, our government officials???

Supreme Court Opinion

Which state will be added to the list in 2008? Will Virginia and Missouri elections be fraudulent this year?

Diebold strongholds

Monday, October 23, 2006

Osama, Osama where art thou?

I'm puzzled about how the GOP believes using Osama to scare people will make them vote Republican.

Osama has not been caught.

Osama has been ignored by President Bush, "I don't think about him much..." or some other such nonsense.

So now they think he's a threat? Why not before?

What's real, is he a threat or not?

If so, why haven't they caught him?

I think he's been a threat all along, and have often wondered why we've been fighting people in Iraq instead...and if he's still such a big threat why we're not turning over every rock in Afghanistan and Pakistan...the Taliban seem to know where he is.

What's up with Osama, GOP?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Writing in opposition on purpose

It occurred to me the other night that Bush and the Republican Congress have one, clear, all-consuming motive:

To retain power.

All this wondering about whether Bush is really Christian or good or whatever is absolutely out the window.

Nothing is more important nor more valuable than being in power, not saving lives, not reducing the debt, not finding peace in the Middle East, not finding alternative fuels, not being ethical, not ANYTHING that's good for America.

My clear example, although there are many that fit this pattern once you think about it, is the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Every single person in this country supports it.
Every Democrat supports it.

There's only one problem, how do you separate yourself from the opposition party when they agree with you?

You break the law.

So while the opposition party is spending it's time trying to argue that the program breaks the law and should be fixed, you can go around saying that the opposition opposes spying on terrorists.

That certainly bolsters the argument that one can't fix other people's messes. Why try?

Let's just let the Republicans run over American laws so that Democrats don't look like, and they can't claim that we're against their programs. Let's let the courts, what's left of them, do the Lord's work for us.

Everyone will be happy then.

By the way, if you wan't to find one fright and lie after another, just go to

If they can't convince us that Democrats love terrorists, their backup is trying to convince people that Charlie Rangal is going to raise taxes even though he has said he won't.

GOP = Greed, Organized crime & Propaganda

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Fox News negotiates with those who negotiate with terrorists

My husband and I were just going over the last few decades of Presidents and he brought up how Reagan's speeches were so much better than the reality of his social programs, how he ignored so many issues like AIDS, deconstructing our social programs and even arms for hostages.

I flashed back to watching Oliver North sitting before a congressional committee on TV day after day one summer when I was working at a gas station at Six Flags over Mid-America.

Oliver North was convicted of three felonies involved with his lying to Congress about negotiating and funding terrorists "guerillas, aka freedom fighters," something that Reagan said he'd never do and so do conservatives argue that position today. [BTW--the ACLU helped North overturn this conviction on a technicality, a difficult but happy lesson in how the ACLU is not a partisan organization!!!!]

How important is that principle to conservatives when instead of letting Oliver North fade into obscurity and humility over that nasty transgression against American values, Fox News employs Oliver North as a hero?

This adds up to a blatant disregard for the law, and at the very least an absolute lack of moral leadership by Fox News and others who continue to support Oliver North.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Abortion and South Dakota

I guess there's a movement afoot to outlaw abortion completely in South Dakota. It's getting press because the anti-choice activists are using a different tactic, they are arguing that abortion is used by society to keep women from being mothers.


If that's not one of the most victim-oriented, paternalistic canards I've heard in awhile.

Sure, we all know that abortion is often VERY convenient for men, and to a lot of other family members who would rather their 16 year-old become a mother at 26 (I have vitriol for "pro-lifers" because I grew up with people who published their names in the paper in ads that sought to outlaw abortions after they had sought and received abortions for their own daughters), and women do sometimes regret having abortions.

But to hold "motherhood" out there as a right, and something so blessed and nurtured by our society (HA!!!) that women who have abortions are missing out on all this festivity, is false advertising.

Being a mother in the United States today is often a very solitary experience. There is little community support without monetary cost and family support is often fractured and distant, and in many places we really have an adult-oriented culture that is as far from PRO-CHILD as we could possibly be. There is constant pressure on parents and children to be more, do more, have more, go more.

Somehow I doubt that it's the woman with the family support, community support and child-centered culture that is seeking an abortion.

I had a conversation with two Democrats tonight that are helping foster children. One woman actually has a child she fosters part-time (she's an educational appointee) and her foster son is very difficult behaviorally. The other woman is on the board of a non-profit that is investing in foster care solutions. Why?

I need to check these stats but this is what I heard tonight: 60- 70% of foster children go to jail after foster homes. 70% of foster children live in L.A. and N.Y.

I met Jim Webb tonight

Jim Webb rocks! He is SO smart and down-to-earth and ready to problem solve this country back on track. If you know anyone in Virginia, please tell them to get out, check out and vote for this solid veteran!

Chris Matthews, weasil Republican mouthpiece, assumes, lies...

Oops, I hate calling people names, I'm sorry it has come to this

Terrorist Shooting in Seattle Barely Reported

Yes, this type of thing has happened in the past with racists and psychos, but how is it that a Muslim walks into a Jewish Center in Seattle, Washington last month, shoots six and kills one. and it hardly gets covered? There's no background story on the dead and wounded, no human interest stuff that we can all identify with. I found the story buried in Newsweek, with no hint of calling it terrorism. Here's a story Seattle Shooting

Isn't that a terrorist attack?

Isn't disinterest worse than hatred?

Update: Okay, I couldn't find anything about this on the ADL website, so maybe it was just a crazy Muslim/Christian psycho incident, not even a hate-group, but still, it was so unreported...

Thursday, October 12, 2006

USA Today notes that there is little evidence of voter fraud to justify ID laws. Thanks for finding this, Schmog XX!!!

Conservatives disagree with yet another bipartisan commission report and have sat on it's release.

Typical--living in lies.

I heard Andrew Sullivan and a conservative movement founder who wrote a book that is is called something likeConservatives Betrayed by Bush on Al Franken's show today. They were both saying how Bush and Congress have abused power beyond belief. Why doesn't the media point this out?

Watching the reporters' faces, watched over by Karl Rove, during Bush's press conference yesterday I could tell that everyone of them was like, "Can you believe what a hole this President has dug us into with Korea, Iraq and our pork spending--and here he is telling us that 'balanced budget' Clinton's plan didn't work for Korea and that the Democrats are going to raise taxes if they are elected [okay, that last comment was the day before]?"

I don't think anyone believes Bush anymore, and I seriously think Korea has absolutely undermined his credibility and judgement on nearly everything, especially on the trails of Katrina and "Denial" in Iraq (speaking of that, in his recent comments he's called MIT's reports on Iraq's estimated deaths, "uncredible" and Hastert, "credible," our President is so ass-backwards it really is insane.)

Of note: When Claire McCaskill was debating Jim Talent on Meet the Press she didn't back down from her comment about Bush leaving poor blacks to die in New Orleans. She did say she could have phrased it better. My husband and I were thinking, hmmm, was Katrina, on the federal level, really malice or was it only incompetence? What can we compare it to? My husband remembered how Bush's agencies responded to the hurricanes near Miami recently--VERY DIFFERENTLY, VERY QUICKLY. What else are we to make of that comparison other than disinterest, disregard, distance? Malice is indifference, is it not?


Tuesday, October 10, 2006

McCain slips to new lows

McCain Blame Game

In stark contrast to most analysis of the Clinton/North Korea situation, McCain sinks to a new low on the "Republicans blame Clinton for Bush's failures" bandwagon.

Did Bush/Rove pay McCain for this break from reality, or did "I support the man who insulted my family to campaign against me" McCain volunteer this nugget of irresponsible, unprincipled drivel himself? I guess it just doesn't matter why they blame, only that they do it, over and over and over.

Monday, October 09, 2006



"We also saw last week the man that, if the Democrats were in control, would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee saying you would get across-the-board tax increases..."
OUTRIGHT LIE BY Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, October 6, 2006 Fox News Your World with Neil Cavuto

ACTUAL TRUTH Would-be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charley Rangal actually said the opposite ON THE SAME SHOW Sept. 26th:

CAVUTO: Would any of the taxes that the president cut -- just income taxes -- be raised or be looked at being raised under Democrats, even in -- on the upper income, the 35 percent rate, maybe bring it back to 39.5 percent?

REP. RANGEL: We don't bring anything back. We would not raise taxes. We would not roll back. The president has -- had allowed these things to expire in 2010. I think -- and I would not advocate or support a retroactive increase in taxes.

Cavuto did not challenge Mehlman on October 6th.

Lies, lies, lies...they can't win without 'em.

Bush: Making the perfect the enemy of the good (rational safety)

A short history of how Bush screwed up our deal with N. Korea

I wonder if their test revealed that a nuke can reach California.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Clinton won; Republicans are losing

Obviously, there's much more to be relieved about in this analysis of why Republican's are sinking in American opinion than Clinton being proved right about 9-11. Finally, the truth about this government and Iraq is coming to light. However, I must point out that after all the lies and Rovian campaign to blame Clinton for 9-11 (something I found particularly cowardly and such a symptom of irresponsiblity and blame by the White House and Congress--even if they were right (they are not)! here is a poll that says 58% of Americans think Secretary RICE did not "do enough" to fight Al Queda before 9-11. I think she protested too much...thank G-d people didn't believe her...

Newsweek Poll

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Dear Larry King,

Please keep in mind that "pro-family" does not mean "conservative." I am a very pro-family liberal, as are 95% of my hundreds of friends. If only our nation's policies were pro-child (health insurance for all children, a stay-at-home mom economy, less alcohol and emotional abuse, equal educational resources, an honest, transparent government, etc.).

[Larry King repeatedly defined pro-family voters as Republicans who would not vote in this election because of the Foley scandal)

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

When it's close

Delay should have already illustrated this for the American people, but it wasn't until Foley that people have begun asking how far Republicans will go to retain their majority in the people's House.

I guess sex is the last line people will draw for politicians, meanwhile they can screw us all they want with bribe money, breaking laws, failing wars, corporate corruption, undermining our economy, and overwriting the constitution.

Rush Limbaugh is blaming Democrats for this scandal! Show us, Rush. Your twisted, maniacally anti-Democrat fantasy is not enough evidence.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

A tale of perversion and cover-up

So let me get this straight, the Republican controlled congress never dealt with the extremely corrupt Delay, the Republican leadership sat by until Delay resigned on his own under threat of felony conviction (long after the charges were in place).

Now we have Rep. Foley, a gay guy with a reputation for harassing pages, the Republican leadership finds out about it months ago (at least) and someone investigates the situation by asking FOLEY if he did anything wrong. Foley doesn't get removed from the committee on Missing and Exploited Children until the page's messages hit the press.

Some people wasted NO TIME in pulling down Foley's congressional web page and his campaign page, it's like the man didn't exist. The cache is gone, too. Isn't his Congressional page still public information?

My point here is actually this:


When Rep. William Jefferson was suspected of taking bribes, Nancy Pelosi immediately took him off of his committee.

When Rep. Foley was suspected of soliciting sex with underage pages, the Republican leadership ignored it and protected Foley's position on the Committee for EXPLOITED and Missing Children.

The parties are not the same.

Saturday, September 30, 2006

For and Against; Cynical me and Anti-Intellectualism

My cynical theory is that many people vote Republican
FOR low taxes, even during war (not noticing that they pay more for healthcare, gas, groceries, school, services, etc.) and sometimes
FOR bigotry (against gays, women, blacks, immigrants, and whoever is the media's whipping post that season), and
FOR a perception that Republicans are "tough"

I think that many Republican voters vote AGAINST Democrats to vote
AGAINST intellectuals
AGAINST people who are different from them

Greed and bigotry are constant sins, but why don't we value intelligence? Why this anti-intellectualism?


While concluding that President Bush "has proved to be lawless and reckless" and "started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution," David Broder explains why Bush was preferable to Al Gore and John Kerry: Their "know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself." Cable News Confidential author Jeff Cohen: another who gives a damn [Gore is from the Midwest, and why is it that rightwingers keep implying that Midwesterners and Southerners aren't smart?]

The Apocalypse on the Left

There are many people on the right who are looking forward to an apocalypse coming here, but some prominent voices on the right, quoted below, are suggesting that electing Democrats will bring on the apocalypse in various forms...does the radical right and their media representatives have their wires crossed? Do the talking heads realize that they risk pulling members of their radical base away from voting for Republicans if the left can deliver the apocalypse? (-;

The freaked out people on the right are so worried about losing power that they are desperately trying to terrorize the populace against voting for Democrats, and to justify voting fraud (the good news is that this may mean that all the voting machines aren't rigged).

I'm going to keep track of what the attack dogs are saying here, but I'm not going to say who said what because they are shameless, partisan publicity whores and I refuse to promote them on my blog (anymore). I'll identify elected or appointed (anointed) politicians, however.


9/29/2006 Fox News, Your World
"The fact that anyone would vote for Democrats because gas prices were going up -- oh, OK, that's worth risking ,another terrorist attack...Way too many people vote. We should have fewer people voting. There ought to be a poll tax to take the literacy test before voting."

9/26/2006 MSNBC, Tucker
"people have made up their minds ... that if we vote Democrat, that just hastens the day we disappear in a nuclear holocaust," and that "re-arguing and re-arguing and re-arguing about how [U.S. soldiers] got [to Iraq] is not only pointless but is going to get them killed."

David Gregory speaks for everyone, ignores obvious conclusions of NIE...

Dear NBC News and David Gregory,

Gregory said " one questions whether this president is tough on terror." The NIE does!! Can we please stress that it is not the Democrats that have produced the NIE report, there are over a dozen intelligence agencies that have concluded that Bush's Iraq policy has created more terrorists and left us less safe. Not everything has to be framed in partisan terms, can you please just stick to the facts and not opinion and "he said she said!!!" In addition, if you insist on relaying partisan bickering when you say, "The Democrats" or "The Republicans" would you at least take the time to quote someone directly? That would be a great step in the direction of responsible journalism, and we rarely get quotes from Democrats via your news sources as it is.

Could it be more obvious that computing and voting should not be combined?

Whistleblowers reveal that voting machines were given a "secret" patch in Atlanta, Georgia

Friday, September 29, 2006

Life and Politics

It’s hard for me to ignore national politics because I don’t see them as separate from the needs and experiences of my family. We all have to live together as a community and I have to shut down a part of myself to keep politics "out” of my relationships with others. Politics stem from how we treat people as a society and that’s important to me. It’s never been separate from my family or my personal life.

I think that now is a time where Americans are turning against each other more than against the terrorists, and maybe its because of a fundamental disagreement about how we fight the terrorists, but that debate hardly makes the news...and in the mean time I’m feeling less safe in my own country as a liberal woman of a hated religion.

None of that means that our different opinions on how we see the world have to interfere in our friendships. It may cause discomfort between us, but conflict happens, even in the most loving relationships. I really don’t want to argue with people, I’m just trying to find out what their point of view is. How far off the edge is this country?

A lot of people and the media act like everyone has to think the same way or there will be “consequences.” I bet if honest people put their heads together we could come up with some great, moderate political solutions. The problem is that we’re not putting our heads together in our government or our press or our culture.

Last weekend we had a big debate over a lot of the issues in front of this country with our family at a ceremonial dinner. The table was half conservative, half liberal, and it became quite apparent that even though our goals were similar (peace in America) the means of achieving it were very different. Often, the liberals were given an “either/or” argument, like, “Either we do what we’re doing, or we sit around and do nothing,” “Either we go to war for oil, or we stop driving our cars,” “If we hadn’t taken out Saddam, we would have done nothing,” “Either we bomb the hell out of Iran, or we do nothing.” The conservatives demanded short, easy answers, yes or no, and there was little room or patience for alternatives, other ideas, approaches, solutions, success! The good news is that by the end of the evening, we had tried to come closer in our views and left on good terms, one individual had actually flipped on her view of Iraq.

I have a lot of faith in our country and our ability to stop terrorism and to come up with alternative fuels, so we don’t have to go to war for oil, but most people are stuck in this fear of everything. Fear that we don’t have enough oil, fear that we can’t survive without oil, fear that liberals want to ignore the terrorists, fear that we can’t stop Iran...

I want leaders that can rule our country with hope, vision, unity and a responsive, smart military. When I see policies that divide our people, that target our people, that intimidate and isolate our people, I see the kind of governing that has led to serious atrocities in the past.

Corruption is not always the same, and does not always have the same affect on people.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

HR 6166 Arrested? 100% Guilty - Our Government is Perfect

You're presumed guilty if you are arrested and suspected to have "purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

[The L.A. Times failed to mention today that this bill affects foreigners AND AMERICAN CITIZENS.]

How vague. "Materially." I know that word is intended to include giving money, but the whole phrase is mighty chilling considering the rhetoric of the right and Republicans who accuse anyone who challenges their ideas for fighting terrorism as a person who coddles, encourages, or supports terrorists. Maybe "materially supporting hostilities against the U.S." means being a liberal who wants to pay for our wars with tax money now instead of leveraging our children's future.

The truth is, no one has made a case for the NEED for this law, which undermines the Bill of Rights.

When the President signs this law, it means any American citizen can be held in a military prison forever without a right to a hearing. It overules the constitutional Bill of Rights--and the Supreme Court has yet to care, they would't hear the appeal of the American who was arrested below.

G-d help you if you are innocent but arrested as an enemy combatant because you're automatically presumed to be guilty, folks.

Our Congress just passed this law for our President, although he was already breaking the law and acting on it:

"We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent."
L.A. Times

So this is what it was like to live during WWII when it became legal for our government to round up anyone of Japanese decent and put them in ghettos.

Far too many Republicans and Democrats have voted to crap on what it means to be American, then and now.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

"Ethics" man Bennet lies on the Today show.

Dear Today show and Matt Lauer,

Maybe he just misunderstood rather than intentionally lying, but either way, Clinton was not the first to bring up his anti-terrorism efforts in the Fox interview. It was Chris Wallace who first broached the topic, and then seem surprised by the complete response Clinton needed to give, the substance of which has mostly been ignored by the mainstream press, and actively campaigned against by Fox News. Will you commit the sin of omission yet again?

This is the third time I've written to the Today show and as of yet I've received no attempt to directly address my legitimate complaints.

[I just have to admit how much I relish when Bennett was on Meet the Press recently and Andrea Mitchell was hosting the show. I don't have respect for Mitchell's journalism anyway and I watched her totally cross the line and put words in Bennett's mouth (something she usually does for Democrats) while Bennett was sitting right beside her! She said something like, "Well I'm sure that Bill Bennett would say..." He was obviously insulted and flabbergasted and ticked off for the entire roundtable. I enjoyed the whole scene a lot more than a person should.]

Income redistribution or anarchy?

I took Bill O'Reilly's bogus "Cultural Warrior" test and failed it by one, leaving him to label me as leaning heavily "to be an S-P" or Secular Progressive. It's amazing to me already that conservatives go around attacking and labeling people "liberals" because that's considered a bad thing by them, but now this narcissist has to start making up new labels to tear down. Wow--I'm so much more about what people do than who people are.

I am progressive (I can't imagine why a person wouldn't be progressive--any type of growth is progressive, but I digress), but I am religious, so that blows a hole in his ridiculous theory right there.

But question number one is framed so at odds with reality that I had to talk about it here.

1. Do you believe in "income redistribution"--that is, the government taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate in order to fund entitlements to the less well off?

We all believe in income redistribution. If we didn't, we wouldn't pay taxes at all. If we didn't, we wouldn't have local governments, state governments or a federal government.

If we didn't have income redistribution we'd live in an anarchy.

If we didn't have income redistribution we'd all take our big paychecks (G-d knows what the little paycheck people would do) and settle our little plot and dig for water and hire our own mercenaries to keep the other anarchists off our "property." We'd have schools for the affluent, too.

So taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate does not DEFINE income redistribution, it is called a PROGRESSIVE tax system. I'm not necessarily in favor of taxing us this anyway (although I could probably be convinced), let's just take away all the loopholes and pay taxes straight up, corporations, too. O'Reilly, that would still be "income redistribution" you misleading ditto-head.

Framing the debate

The intelligence report says that Iraq has fueled terrorists and made America less safe. Bush's response is that we must be offensive in order to make us more safe. Who's arguing that we do not need to defend ourselves? It's just becoming glaringly obvious that playing offense in Iraq (wait, I thought we were nation building there) isn't working.

Here's my logic: We don't know anything that we didn't know before, the point is that Bush has been saying all along that Iraq and his approach makes us more safe, and that this intelligence report direcctly contradicts their constant BS.

I really don't care that we're more or less safe because of Iraq (I already knew we were less safe, I guess), I just want someone to f**ing get us out of Iraq ASAP and catch the terrorists that really are a threat to us, you know, the "global reach" terrorists that Bush outlined after 9-11 [thanks Vigilante], and let's take aim at the guy who actually planned 9-11 and who is currently flaunting his connections with Afghanistan's Teliban. One day Bush says we're doing everything to catch bin Laden, the next day he's telling Fred Barnes that bin Laden is really not a priority.

We're in this war with an incompetent, bancrupting president who presents one story to the public, and another to his friends.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

I know, 1984

I know it's been 1984 for awhile; war is peace, lies are the truth, the truth is ignorance, etc., but I guess I was sleeping when Secretary Rice was doing the lying last time.

She recently directly contradicted Bill Clinton's historical analysis and the 9-11 report and totally mischaracterized her administration's approach to terrorism prior to 9-11. Here are the details from Media Matters, the 9-11 report and Richard Clark's book:

Links to 9-11 report

Monday, September 25, 2006

A fighter and quick thinker

Sherrod Brown took on a room of disgruntled liberals tonight at pricey fundraiser that I attended as a guest of an organizer. He is a bright, capable, energetic leader and detailed the ways that Democrats are going to reverse the results of 2004 in Ohio this year. He's honest and a fighter, he's progressive and realizes that so are most people if you frame the argument in simple terms. My husband asked him how he responds to "cut and run" criticism and he said something like, "Republicans are asking us for a plan when all their mistaken 'plans' have led us to this, and they cut and run in Afghanistan!" I told him that I wish I could hear Democrats saying something like this to voters in regard to Iraq, "If you vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, any Democratic plan, we'll start moving in the right direction to get us out of Iraq; if you vote Republican we'll be staying the chaos." I asked him how he was going to take on the ever-present tool of Republicans, "We won't raise your taxes," B.S. He said that he won't raise taxes on the middle class (I know, it's such a crappy situation). As my dinner pal said to me, "How do people expect to cover $2 billion a week in spending without taxes? It's just a bill we keep building."

Good question. Bush and Dewine are walking around saying, "This expensive war will be continued indefinitely, and we'll make those wealthy tax cuts permanent!" Huh? Bombs and butter, bombs and butter, bombs and butter....

A lot of people were talking about Clinton on Meet the Press and on Fox Morning. Most were happy with what Clinton said, he's brilliant of course, and my husband and I were saying how Fox News' chattering ditto-heads [thanks, Vigilante] are trying to pull a "Howard Dean" on Clinton, trying to make him look like a lunatic because he got mad. If someone suggested I didn't do all I could when I did, I'd get mad, too--and heck, Bush looks like a raving mad man most of the time lately, any conservatives noticing that? Fox isn't showing any of the footage of Clinton's substantive responses to Wallace's question--they don't show how Clinton won the debate, of course. They certainly aren't questioning Bush or Cheney (the guys that still haven't caught bin Laden and who are in the position to do so) with the same question! Heck, I'd follow Clinton's people into Pakistan to catch bin Laden, I know my way around an AK-47, give us clearance King George (okay, maybe I wouldn't now, but I would have before I got married/kids, etc.).

Oh, I just have to add that a relative of mine the other day said, "Bush isn't a friend of the Saudi's!" What planet do these people live on? I didn't even try to argue with that, and I'd been arguing all night--it was just like a switch clicked on in my mind that said, "Don't bother." I hate that thought.


A vision for a better future

Tonight my husband and I went to a fundraiser for Joe Sestak of PA. He was phenomenal!! He is the kind of leadership we are looking for as a nation. He is a compassionate Navy guy who is absolutely on the ball with Middle East challenges. He delivered a passionate, articulate, moving, and strong speech about who he was and why he cares about our country and its people. He started running for election because his then toddler daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer--she had terrific healthcare, but he witnessed other children with cancer in this country who didn't have adequate health insurance. 6 million people more have become uninsured since Bush/Cheney. So much for our abundance...

My question for Sestak was how he envisioned our military presence in the Middle East in the future. He was well versed in the intracacies of Iraq's cultural problems and basically said that we'd have a small presence there, in a couple small countries possibly (he didn't list Iraq), to secure those countries and lend stability to our allies, but we shouldn't leave a big footprint. We need leaders like him in Congress.

John Murtha was there also. It is stunning to me that this conservative, ethical Marine has been treated so poorly by the adminstration (Cheney called Murtha dishonest among other nasty implications).

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Webb in Virginia starts winning and the press starts spinning

Dear AP,

Just because Allen wasn't pulled aside and offered the explanation that body armor is included in the description "protection equipment" and "tactical equipment" doesn't mean he didn't vote against protecting the National Guard with updated protective equipment, including "body armor." Why are you helping him spin his poor judgement by making excuses for him?

[In "analyzing" an ad that Webb ran against Allen criticizing Allen for voting down body armor, the AP offered the lame excuse that no one specifically mentioned "body armor" when describing the bill on the House floor. I guess our representatives aren't expected to draw thoughtful conclusions from broad concepts. is on this "spell it out for Allen" bandwagon, also.]

Distasteful Hypocrisy

Dear MSNBC and Tucker Carlson,

On the children's book _Mommy is a Democrat_

TUCKER CARLSON: "It is, of course, propaganda, and it's always and everywhere wrong and creepy and should be obviously a bad thing to do to impose your politics on children. Doesn't matter what your politics happen to be. Kids ought to be immune from politics. Be quiet, don't push it on them."

On the children's book _Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!_

TUCKER CARLSON: "'s a clever book, I have to say. Thanks a lot for coming on. I hope it sells."

The first book simply stresses liberal values, the second book attacks liberals but the first book is the propaganda? HUH?

You didn't call a book ostensibly about conservative "values," that apparently includes making liberals scary "propaganda." Tucker Carlson, are you saying that being a Democrat and having and promoting Democratic values is WRONG and attacking liberals is RIGHT?

Friday, September 22, 2006

Who is the fraudulent voter?

The "people's" House just voted to suppress the vote nation wide,

"The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican."

Why are American's so comfortable with this? I suspect vile, inhuman, indefensible reasons that are spoken only to those who are like-minded [okay, my husband pointed out that showing IDs might just make good sense to some people].

There is no fraud problem with voters going to vote.

The fraud problems are with those administering the voting.

The Nazi's in Germany (before WWII) began changing laws to slowly push certain groups of people out of the German definition of a citizen--eventually Jews and others were not German citizens. Goebbels is still proved right that the biggest lies are believed, and a strong minority in this country seems comfortable with fascism. What does this mean for those of us who aren't comfortable with fascism? I'm really trying not to obsess about this, to believe that people will come around, wake up, and change the direction of this country. But I thought that would happen in 2004.


Update: My husband points out that this voter ID bill is a very smart, logical tactic that the Republicans are using because it seems like it's harmless and will make practical sense to people. And we have to say specifically that this is not the type of fraud that is happening; that people now have to verify their current address either with their ballot or their ID and also be registered on the voting rolls at their precinct in order to vote. That's enough bureaucracy, isn't it you "smaller government" Republicans? Why do we need to make grandma in the nursing home got get her picture taken on a state ID when she's been voting in the same place for 15 years? Where's the voter fraud? It's not voter fraud, it's voting machine tampering and political operative/governmental fraud that's happening. Rove is smart, very fraud is not our problem, it's the VOTER's problem. Ugh.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Thinking about abundance

I met Steven Covey in New York when I accompanied a friend to one of his talks. I had very little idea of who he was, other than a Mormon who wrote a book about success. I figured that he was a conservative person, a Republican probably, and gave it very little thought. Then his talk stuck with me, and I had an intense conversation with my friend about the idea of approaching life with an attitude of scarcity or abundance. At the time, I thought that thinking in terms of abundance was absolutely irresponsible considering population explosions and global warming. But now I realize that this attitude is more about how an individual relates to other people, rather than how we use and abuse our world.

In an abundant world, we give easily.

In an abundant world, we fear less from our fellow man.

In an abundant world, we don't supress the vote.

Today, Americans live in material abundance and fear others. It's an odd paradigm. I'm not sure how it plays out.

We fear that we don't have enough protection from the terrorists, we fear that our government is too indebted to be overcome, we fear that we do not have enough military to fight bigger wars, we fear that there won't be enough jobs for our children, we fear that our retirements are not going to be easy, we fear the poor and homeless (and that we might become either).

The powers that be encourage all of these fears.

There are leaders that believe we have enough, but in our culture their voices are hard to hear. Enough to protect us from terrorists, enough to fight those that have hurt us or those who still might, enough to restore a balanced budget, enough to restore military readiness, enough to provide education to every child, enough for workers to retire in comfort, enough to share with the poor and house or care for the homeless. Enough for all of us.

Many people believe that if we have enough for "us," there isn't enough for ME.

I get very sad when I think about how people fear the poor or less fortunate and how people vote for personal interests over community interests. I couldn't put my finger on it and then my husband prompted me, "Your dad showed you how people can be helped, and you grew up poor." No one knows me better than my husband.

An accountability drop in the ocean

Dear Fox News,

Morton Kondracke recently claimed that insurgents in Iraq want to help defeat those who oppose Bush's policies in the fall election. On what factual basis does he make that assumption? Did you ever report that al qaeda is suspected to have written a letter celebrating the idea of a Bush presidential re-election? The terrorists believed that Kerry's people would defeat bin Laden (see below). Kondracke said exactly the opposite back then--without facts, without merit. Why can't Kondracke and Fox lobby for your Republican agenda without outright lies? I wonder how you guys justify this to yourselves. In this era of "news" and politics I have to teach my child that adults they see on television who claim that they know what they're talking about just can't be trusted.

According to Reuters, an apparent Al Qaeda letter that surfaced in March stated that the group supports Bush's reelection: "The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.' ... [The letter added,] 'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. ... Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.'" [Reuters, 3/17/04]

More on moral relativism

So my conservative friend got me thinking about corruption in politics and I was fuming because I just don't see how Democrats equal Republicans in the latter's quest to suppress the vote in this country. Ken Blackwell, who is now running for Governor in Ohio, double-take, is exhibit #1 in the number of ways Republicans have blocked, obscured, complicated, and interfered with (often illegally) democracy. Ohio and Florida are easy examples. The only tampering I can recall hearing about with Democrats was Kennedy's people paying people to go vote. So, here's this moral equivalence thing...Republicans and the press will say that both parties are equally bad even though Republicans STOP people from voting, and Democrats have alegedly PAID people to vote (I'm not even sure about that).


At worst you can call what Democrats may have done in the distant past a bribe, but in the real world of voting mechanics it's a GAMBLE. No dollar can guarantee that someone punches the card for your guy or girl.

On the other hand, what Republicans do is STOP Americans' right to vote (whether a person does it voluntarily or involuntarily). Doing everything they can to retain power, Republicans have now resorted to controlling voting machines and software so that there isn't even the slightest chance that an opposing party can win. That's no gamble, that's macro DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

I'm amazed that there isn't more outrage about this--it's so basic to our right to govern ourselves.

Update: My husband pointed out that while voting tampering may be the lesser of two evils for Democrats on the individual level (in terms of a person being or not being in the voting booth), the effect of vote tampering by either party is equally damaging to our democratic process. Mea culpa!