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 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110606R.shtml

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 www.talkingpoints.com 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