Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Anti-intellectualism and Anti-Poverty in the Press

I was listening to Which Way L.A. and the "Democratic" Moderate (I call him a wishy-washy Republican with guilt) slammed Al Gore for quoting too many authorities about a subject. I guess it was just SO boring, or, it seemed, too smart for that guy (I guess he can't do that, I can't either, unless you're talking about baby sleep patterns or new wave nutrition!).

So it's not just on the right that we find anti-intellectualism, and obviously, this is how we got and keep George Bush--and an insane war. We deny reality (facts) and ignore rationality (logic). Who needs critical thinking when we've got spin and Fox News!

I've yet to see a positive article about John Edwards in the L.A. Press. The link above's comments hint at why this is so--no corporation likes a populist. The last article ended with this quote from some Clinton polster, "If Edwards doesn't win Iowa he's dead." Such arrogance, isn't there?

More disturbing to me was how the article pitted the interests of the poor against the middle class. They wanted to establish that the poor has no consituency (voting block) which is disgusting even if the numbers "show" that.

They failed to point out the truth...that many of us ARE poor, we just don't fill out the questionaire to reflect that truthfully.

In 2004 I never thought Edward's "two Americas" was useful because even the folks in the poor America think they are in the Middle Class America. He's figured that out, among other things.


"Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much

Does that make me crazy?...Probably [Possibly (radio version)]

And I hope that you are having the time of your life
But think twice, that's my only advice"

Gnarls Barkley, Crazy

Yet another reminder that we can't eat beef without concern


I've received two e-mails from the Clinton campaign asking for help picking a campaign song.

One before Memorial Day, one after Memorial Day.

I voted for Celin Dion (I'm not a fan) but it was the only one with the lyrics that I could stomach for her personal story.

I grew up with this kind of dissonant bull-shit:
Pretending that everything is fine on the outside but a mess on the inside. She did that with her marriage while Bill Clinton was in a personal mess. I don't blame her for that.

But asking for public support to vote on songs that bring up romantic relationships just doesn't seem like a good idea on her part.

And that's AFTER it just seems superficial and crass when we have a REAL MESS on our hands and she's a sitting SENATOR who isn't getting us out of IRAQ, NOW. THIS is the kind of participation she wants from us, NOW? How f-ing fun.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Memorial Day

The link above will lead you to finding contact information for your senators.

Here is the House:

I am so angry. I called all my reps and left an angry message telling them to start getting our troops home tomorrow. Come to think of it, I'll write to the White House.

The people are against this occupation.

The President, Congress and the military are playing a game with our soldiers.

The President will not compromise (as Edwards has stated) so WE must stop this war. We must tell our representatives how angry we are and that we want our soldiers home ASAP.

This war was based on lies.
It's been continued with lies.
It is and has been a big mistake.

Any new plan, Mr. Obama, must mean going after the REAL terrorists; with diligence and foresight.

No more GUT operations.


Thursday, May 24, 2007


I can't stand to hear President Bush justify this OCCUPATION by threatening us that we'll get hit IN THE U.S. if we stop occupying Iraq.

IT'S A LIE!!!!!

We could get hit anytime unless we vigilently prevent it.

It's been only 6 years since 9-11, Bin Laden waited 8 years between World Trade Center attacks.

I hope to God our CIA and FBI is focused on that little pattern, otherwise we might get another attack right before our country elects another president.

What did we have to lose?

If we had not funded the war, we would have been here:

1. A military that would have run out of money next week (according to Murtha).

2. A REAL Republican Senate, since Lieberman would have switched parties (granted we have the effect of one now in votes, but control/agenda is important).

3. A Memorial Day Weekend with Democrats being blamed for not funding the troops, literally, and for ending the war before Bush had finished his new surge.

The Democrats tried to get past No. 1 by floating a 2-month funding bill, but the Military Industrial Complex freaked out and they couldn't get any Republicans and a lot of the pro-Military Democrats to vote for it.

So what were their options?

They couldn't pass any bill in Congress with an end date.
So there was NO WAY they could pass a bill giving the President an end date, or funding with any condition of withdrawal (although I think they should have tried to pass a WITHDRAWAL mandate without an end date--but they could do that NOW!).
They could, and did, pass a bill with a funding end date.

And that's what we have.




Someone just called into say this whole thing would be a lot easier if we just dropped the bomb, like Hiroshima, on Iraq and got it over with, so they'd know they can't mess with us, so we won't lose like we lost Vietnam.

He feels comfortable saying that on C-Span, yet I don't feel comfortable putting a peace sticker on my car (because of what people like him might choose to do to my car while I'm not in it).

Another caller just threatened Democrats that "they will pay" if they cut off funding. This caller appreciated the bombing comment.

God help us.

Okay, so these lunies are probably calling their representatives, are WE?

So what's the plan, Harry?

I guess Congress will soon adjourn for the summer and our soldiers will slug away until we return to this very same political stand-off in September?

Why doesn't Congress tell the President he has until September to get our troops out; and its everybodys f-ing job to do it safely...there will be no authorization for an occupation of Iraq after that. It's over.


Wednesday, May 23, 2007

NR catches statistically backed lies about the poor, published in the WSJ

The rich and powerfu (Republicans)l take a foul shot at John Edward's campaign to adopt policies that benefit the poor:


Judd Gregg (R-NH) requested that the Congressional Budget Office prepare a study measuring how low-income households with children have fared from 1991 to 2005. CBO dutifully complied, and found that low-income households with children have seen their income rise 35% over this period. The result is trumpeted in a lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. The poor get richer! shouts the Journal. There are the predictable sneers at John Edwards for his insistent belief that there are poor people in the United States, and demands that the "class envy lobby" accept "this dose of economic reality."

But wait. Why fifteen years? Well, it is a nice, round number. But fifteen years (from the last year where data) is available is 1991. That was a recession year, when incomes for this group collapsed. So the CBO study that Gregg demanded measures the change from a recession year to a boom year. Incomes for the poor -- or anybody -- always rise over the course of a business cycle. The measurement Gregg demanded is simply useless.

If you look closely at the study, you find that all the low-income growth occurred in the 1990s -- more than all, in fact. It peaked in 2000, and has fallen since. One table in the study shows that low-income households with children had their income drop more than 10% from 2000 to 2005. You could take that point and argue that the Bush administration has made the poor poorer. That wouldn't be a fair argument-- Bush didn't cause the 2001 recession -- but it would be much fairer than the point Gregg and the Journal are making.

The interesting question is whether, by the time the current business cycle hits its peak, incomes for people at the bottom will recover to where they were at the peak of the last business cycle. As of 2005 they still haven't caught up.

--Jonathan Chait

Jane Harman (202) 225-8220

I called yet again to tell her to vote for the strictist lobbying reform, her aide said something slimey like she's, "Still reading the language, loves bi-partisan reform bills,"

I said that we're watching what Congress does, and that it looks like Democrats are backing away from stopping this war, which is a huge concern.

I'm pissed.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Rumsfeld and Nutrasweet, the saga

"In 1979, the FDA established a public board of inquiry to investigate aspartame safety issues. The board determined that there was no 'proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.' It's those darn tumors again. Thumbs down.

"Now go to 1981. The day after Ronald Reagan took office, Searle reapplied to the FDA for approval of aspartame (with no new data) because the company felt that this new administration would be more business-friendly. This wasn't a guess. They knew because they had an inside voice. Donald Rumsfeld was on Reagan's transition team. Donald Rumsfeld also happened to be the CEO of J.D. Searle. Hmm, welcome to Washington.

"So a new FDA head, Arthur Hull Hayes, and an entirely new advisory panel were put in place for a retry. Once again, the in-house FDA panel advised against approval. However, in 1981, Arthur Hull Hayes 'overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team, and approves NutraSweet for dry products." (see FDA History (scroll down to 1981--we guess they forgot to take this down?)

Meanwhile, even the National Soft Drink Association lobbied the FDA not to approve Nutrasweet. They opposed it because when aspartame gets above 86 degrees F, it breaks down into a common poison known as free methanol (wood alcohol). Your body, as you know, is normally 98.6 degrees F. Methanol is a problem because it breaks down into formic acid (normally used to strip off epoxy) and formaldehyde (the embalming fluid). This means that every time you boil up your sugar-free Jell-O or put that little blue packet in your hot tea or coffee, you could be getting more than you bargained for...

"...Within 4 months [of approving aspartame in carbonated beverages in 1983], [Hayes] left the FDA and took a position as a consultant in Searle's public relations firm. This is how the FDA approved aspartame.

"...if it ain't food, don't eat it."

pp.200-201, Dr. Will Clower, The Fat Fallacy

Bold emphasis added by blogger.

Defend Science

The New Republic had an ad for this organization. Scary that we need this now. I just want to say, though, why do we need to have a "Darwin" day? Why not an "evolution" day? We must have thousands of scientists who have contributed to the SCIENCE of evolution, why make it a cult of personality, and all about the MAN? Ugh.

Monday, May 21, 2007

America's shameful cover-up: Nutrasweet, et. al.

I haven't read this article fully but it does mention the Searle company that pushed Nutrasweet into legality in the U.S., despite serious opposition by most of the FDA at the time. I'm not sure if this article mentions Rumsfeld, but he was involved at the time and I'll find the site tomorrow from a book I have called The Fat Fallacy by Dr. Will Clower. The book also suggests that Nutrasweet becomes like embalming fluid when heated by the body. Yum.

It's my life goal to see Nutrasweet labeled as poison (or banned). Just another FYI.

Friday, May 18, 2007

God Debate

I'm writing a long piece on the God/Jesus/Atheism debate right now, but after reading Newsweek's commentary on the Pope's new book, I couldn't help but think of the history of 20th Christianity in this way:

Teams of investigators on the right side of my picture looking at Jesus and investigating every detail of his life, words and archaeological context; God sits on the left, completely alone, saying, "What am I, chopped liver?"


Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Education, Joy, and Hope

Those are the "things" that all people need. The amount of controlling our government and especially religious leaders do has nothing to do with what people need to live healthy lives in thriving communities.

We need to provide, not limit, and then our children, our people, will take care of themselves.

What can we provide every person in this nation?

Education (education), Joy (emotional and physical health), and Hope (self-worth).

From Greg Palast

"Prosecutor-gate is not about Gonzales’ incompetence. It’s not about appointing “loyal Bushies.” It’s not even about firing A Few Good Men.

"It’s about the 2008 election and changing the Department of Justice — the agency charged with protecting voters — into an army of Rove-bots…programmed to attack them."

I called my congresswoman today

I called Rep. Jane Harman's office and told her assistant:

#1 I want her to support Pelosi's strict enforcement for lobbying reform.

#2 I am growing (I tried to sound like I was not crazy) to support the immediate impeachment of Cheney and Bush because I heard today that Bush is meeting with James Dobson regarding our foreign policy. I said that that reveals an unstable, dangerous and insane approach to our foreign policy and the next two years are going to seem like forever if we're on the edge of our seats waiting for this man to invade the NEXT country that he deems a threat to us.

I'm considering e-mailing my entire address book about impeachment--help me compile the SIMPLE list in your comments.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

"We [the U.S.] go under, Western Civilization goes under!"

That was Tom Trancedo. It's little gems like that that remind me that this is:

The party where individuals define themselves as "white," Christian, controlling, separatist, and supremacist.

If we understand that (and I'm finally accepting the reality of it--and believe me--that's personal), then we understand everything about most Republicans today.

The supremacist label doesn't just mean "white" supremacist, it means that having more money is better than, having children is better than, being straight is better than, not being elderly is better than, believing in God is better than, being American is better than, being Republican is better than. Not one single thing I just described makes anyone better than anyone else.

That's the beginning and the end of the entrenched difference between the parties.

(okay, Democrats get the rub for thinking that education is better than, but that one's hard to argue against, although there are different kinds of intelligence and talents, but even so we advocate GREAT education for everyone, not just us).

Riveting Debate

Wow, the Republicans are getting some tough questions on Fox News (not that the questions didn't set some ridiculous implications, too)!

Most amazing, TRUTH SPEAKER RON PAUL! As my husband points out, not even Democrats running for President have publically admitted the historical truth behind 9-11. Rudy Guiliani had a caniption fit and was actually cut off by Fox for his second response, I'm sure he'll get another word in, but for now, WOW! He never said, "we invited" 9-11, he just said, it was a response to our foreign policy blunders. No sh**.


partisan propaganda

The L.A. Times ran an op-ed that suggests that Democrats are "CRAZY". That's like something I'D write about REPUBLICANS but I wouldn't expect any American newspaper to PUBLISH something that banal!

Rasmussen in cahoots with rightwing op-ed editors; continuing the drumbeat that Democrats should not be trusted. In other words, don't believe your own eyes (it's the Democrats, stupid): For what purpose would we even ask this question? Oh yeah, it's like intelligent design "logic"'s not FACTS that matter, it's FEELINGS!

World Bank Dance

The bottom line is that the World Bank is run by the U.S. We appointed a Neocon nutjob who has probably isolated himself and runs with scissors, along the lines of Bolton, deserves to step down, won't, and has probably stalled everything the rest of the world has wanted to accomplish. I heard a journalist defending Wolfie on NPR the other day, accusing him of being a political target (what's the f-ing difference between politics and policy?)...another attempt to shun responsibility for any mistake that a neocon makes. Have they ever admitted any faulty judgement, ever? Of course not!

That's why we're here right now--stuck in Iraq, stuck in a sour housing market (I heard a financial apologist on NPR today cheerleading subprime mortgages for the poor and minorities), and a corrupt government (AND the Democrats in the House are backing away fromt their pledges to reform the system right now).

So the World Bank, pretty much hamstrung by our nutjob adminstration, is using a warped, sad, unprofessional and embarressing PR campaign to discredit Wolfie.

I pray that we will have a more mature, professional, and ethical world when my generation is in charge. That can only happen if we hang out the dirt for everyone to see and to learn from.

The apologist journalists and politicians need to be SLAYED until they stop their cowardly dance, in order to help teach the next generation of leaders. These wrongs must be righted. I truly hope our people will bring real justice to this country and world soon.

Um...thanks Schmog...of course I mean HELD ACCOUNTABLE: SLAYED was just a metaphor for the intensity in which I believe we (the vocal progressives) should hold people accountable for the injustices journalists and politicians propogate against our people.

Monday, May 14, 2007

The Pope Doesn't Anger Me

What if we had no laws for or against abortion? What if we just let women and their doctors negotiate women's health? We have laws now that allow abortion as a right to privacy. If we overturn that law, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortions become illegal--it doesn't shut down Planned Parenthood, but some states would quickly procede to ban abortion, which I think is clearly wrong.

I read some of the Pope's comments about abortion and they struck me in a very spiritual way. I can accept that when a person has an abortion, that person may not be aligned with God at that moment, and that the church can teach that. That perspective is not about controlling women, it's about keeping a human connection with God. He's telling men, too, that you put your money where your mouth is when it comes to God. That's consistent. We are all connected by what we believe and what we do--we share responsibility to some degree. But we do not share our personal, moral and spiritual paths.

So if the pope advocated men (and women) passing laws to BAN abortion, that would be a whole new ballgame. Banning abortion places way too much of the moral weight of a woman's life on someone that isn't related to her.

I wish we lived in a country where we had no laws regarding abortion at all--it's a personal, medical and moral choice.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Mother's Day Wish

To all Mothers now and in the future I wish the warmest wishes for

Self-love and acceptance as a daughter,
affectionate connections with your loving partner and/or friends,
and the most loving, joyful and honest connections with your child or children, for your whole life.

Peace be with you and all of our children on Mother's Day, 2007.

Evolutionary Psychology; Not knowledge and no longer fun

Several weeks ago I saw an article about this in the L.A. Times. The climate then was that this teacher was once again under public scrutiny because of the Southern Christian Leadership Council investigation, but that the professor's lawyers would protect him from any action by the PUBLIC school to censure him for his inflammatory rhetoric about a particular ethnic group that he views, "in a less than flattering light,"--mine. As far as I know, despite the outrage, nothing has changed in his life or ours.

There's a professor at Cal State Long Beach who supposedly believes that Jews in America work together to oppose the majority and destroy our country (I think we're generally too busy doing good things for our families and the Temple sometimes, but I digress). He defines, "destroying" as the act of allowing diverse immigrants to immigrate here. He says we Jews are actively trying to destroy the White-European majority (which I previously thought included me and all of my family, but ever since I've moved to L.A. the definition of who is "white" keeps shrinking and I realize, it has always been a meaningless term, I will forever use it in "quotes" to indicate the word's untrustworthiness; perhaps I should also say, "black" like that, too, that's a pretty inconclusive term for most people; I think most people belong to the "race" called AND, as in black AND white, white AND brown, Asian AND red, yes, it's all arbitrary).

Anyway, this professor is describing a threat that few people rationally feel, that is definitely not proved, all the while blaming a minority he does not accurately perceive, using unsound theory, and he's got Hitler's sense of logic, "Why Jews should be despised." In one of his books he describes a "hypothetical" tax structure and college admission system that would discriminate against Jews! He's got a game plan for the Supremicists (and links to their websites from his university site).

Should I start packing up my family for a move to Canada? I'm not going to stick around for long if this kind of talk takes off--I did learn something from history that involves saving my family's ass early.

I'm pretty sure he has tenure, so the University can't fire him for believing, writing, and joining David Duke's ilk in promoting that an American minority is a threat to America (and what the media is neglecting to acknowlege, all those non-European immigrants he calls the "threat"). I wouldn't stand for any professor advocating group-based prejudices for any group without supporting public pressure on him to get out of academia (or government), lest my own. But if you go to his website, not only does he criticize Jews for successes, he also criticizes Jews for defending ourselves from similar attacks. Wow, I'm being so Jewish right now, right Professor?

I think it's fascinatingly wierd that when some people perceive a problem in society, they start blaming a minority for it--it's such a distraction from what actually moves us (or doesn't). "It's not my people, it's yours," sort of thought. It affects immigrants, pregnant women, religions, secularists, minorities, and even men, etc. He says, "Behavioral science research clearly documents that different ethnic groups have different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc." Oh really, so what talents do you attribute to being white, you race-based thinker? What can my Jewish ("white" AND Jewish) child do that his "black" (Chinese AND black) friend can't, and vice versa? How ridiculous is that beginning for a way to explore human talents and limitations???

Damn it, we all have faults, and we all have hearts, and we don't have to be beholden to our ethnic "identities" for any of it, we're all human, and who we are is a complex, fluid tapestry of environment, beliefs and personality. This kind of "ethnic theory," passing under the guise of academia, is totally one dimensional, which fails short of perceiving humans, who are three dimensional (at least). It is the trap Hitler fell into (and thank God, it was a trap).

Even more disturbing to me than this one professor's POV is the recent university statement issued to defend MacDonald in the L.A. Times:

"...academic freedom does not constrain or restrict the spectrum of knowledge, whether that knowledge is popular or unpopular."

No wonder he has a home there--they can't separate facts and truth (knowledge) from "educated" guesses (THEORY).

The University's statement says nothing about MacDonald being wrong (how could they justify his employment), or being prejudiced, or at the very least, expressing his own darned opinion and not theirs. Instead, the statement actually infers that what he is doing, and what they are defending, counts as "knowledge." As an academic, I know first hand that Just because a bloke can string a bunch of historical facts together, doesn't mean his or her conclusions about them constitute knowledge. In this opinion, he makes huge assertions about Jews, Jewish opinion, and Jewish motives, without the citings that legitimate arguments need to substantiate such claims. His deeply cynical argument that Neoconservatism is a Jewish plot, is as appropriate as blaming Christians for it (which I do not). Jews and Christians (if they can actually be held to any religious affiliation in real life) have come together as Neoconservatives in an unholy pact that benefits both "parties", I would say, all those individuals, financially and has become a threat to Jews and Christians, and every other American, alike. And is Israel, supposedly the Neocon's Jewish litmus test, better off because of Neoconservatives being in power? NOT!

So I ask Cal State Long Beach, so when did you guys start calling THEORY "KNOWLEDGE?" I expect more from the ivory towers. Knowledge, is generally the learning of FACTS and TRUTH. Even the field of Pyschology can't be called FACTUAL or TRUTHFUL, it's ALL theory!

Never have I believed that Evolutionary Psychology, the basis of this professor's research, is based on FACT or TRUTH, it's always been a fun, theoretical, biological game for me that generalizes in a highly Freudian (read that sexual/motherly) ways about men and women. Even though many feminists have had a problem with EP for some time, I haven't (oops) because I never thought it carried much weight (which is probably true), and I always thought EP was intellectual fluff that actually made some intuitive sense to me and made an interesting debate among my peers (in that unhappy, biological-clock-ticking space and time), but it's true that, on the whole, the field always has always been disturbingly comprised of mostly odd, male biologists who were basically putting together a whole lot of THEORY to justify certain contemporary behaviors, like male infidelity [e.g. Granted, that didn't seem as fun to me after my ex-husband asked for a divorce after having an affair, but I just haven't thought that much about EP since I stopped working at a University long before that divorce, until today. It turns out, not only is the querky field inclusive of chauvenists, they are opening their arms for racists, too. The Executive Council of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society included MacDonald on their board for at least six years.

That's it, I'm done, Evolutionary Psychology is a ridiculous, one-dimensional sham that I'm sorry I ever played with.

He's the real deal

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Dear Mr. President, We don't want to lose our seats or the White House

11 Republicans try to save their seats and the White House in 2008:

Think Progress Report

Gees Mr. President, this Iraq thing sure makes us Republicans look bad, could you shut-up and let the military take the blame while we scare people into electing more Republicans?

Cable TV Propaganda

I saw a local Republican Congressman, not identified as a Republican, being interviewed in a Time/Warner room on CNN--a local public service message.

The Congressman said that the terrorists would just "hold out" for an end date (this "argument" just makes no sense since this is a civil war in Iraq, and I don't think anyone thinks that the "terrorists" aren't going full tilt there now).

The Congressman said that we should continue fighting because the people who have already died would be dishonored if we left without "winning."

How does he look in the face of a soldier now, he probably doesn't, and say, "Um, you have to continue fighting and risk your life to honor those who have died before you--nevermind that this is a war created and continued with lies."

Even if our soidiers WANT to die to honor those that died before them, should we allow that?

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

The Age of Consequences--It's here.

Heat Wave.

I look at my town and see dry leaves as a danger, one spark away from fire. The animals at the zoo were nearly evacuated yesterday.

I look at Kansas, so near the towns where I grew up, and think about the tornadoes I saw then. And I imagine the brutal, enormous, awesome and raging tornadoes that must have passed through those towns the other day. I never saw anything like that as a kid.

I think of last summer in England in July and how my son slept in a diaper overnight, every night--unimaginable in my youth when I would visit every summer only to be surprised by the cold and damp.

Citibank is now investing billions of dollars into responses to climate change.

All we have to do is follow the's here.

The Bully Guy

Looking at video feed on CNN I saw a picture of a guy taking a chain saw away from a worker in Kansas just so he could start it and stop it. Then I saw a video of the same guy doing a bad mimic of an African dance at the White House, and he pushed his way onto a drum that was physically attached to a drummer, just so he could beat it for a few beats (not well).

Why does our President have such a need to push and pull? I guess he DOES have a lot to prove.


Bullies and the Culture of Life

It's striking to me that the party of Republicans, that thrives on bullying tactics and ill-defined machismo, barks about a "culture of life." It only counts, they say, when you're talking about unborn human beings. According to most conservatives, once we're out of our mother's wombs, we're on our own in this test called earth--don't ask them for humane respect again until you reach your heavenly father.

So in this great wash of LIFE that actually counts for the rest of us, and them, actually, we encounter a lot of tests that, in my opinion, show whether we are REALLY PRO-LIFE:

Clean air
Clean water
A healthy work and living environment that includes foods without poison and furninishings without chemicals.
Finding God in ourselves and others with traits like dignity, respect, and humane treatment of the insane or criminal.

So I'm appauled that we are using our soldiers to hold up a government that operates like this, until I remember that people in our country also LOVE the death penalty--so it's not like we can expect Republicans to see how brutal and inhuman this whole affair is.

Society Boozer hits the front page

I was just thinking how celebrities in NY are given so much respect by Hollywood actors because they live in NY. One thing that sets New Yorker's apart is that even if they are raging alcoholics, like so many of our Hollywood actors, they probably aren't going to hurt anybody because they can take taxi's and public transport, or heh, just walk home. That our boozers insist on jumping behind the wheel for an In and Out Burger has a lot to do with how we live out here. What's a neighborhood? If I got a DUI and couldn't use my car for three months I'd be okay for some things, but I'd sorely miss healthy, organic food.

And in that moneyed world where the law doesn't seem to matter because someone can easily pay for their law breaking activities (you know, that motivation that keeps most of us law abiding--we don't want to pay that fine or that ticket), whoops! Don't forget there is JAIL. Paris proves that their lawyer can't save them from a ticked off judge. So Hollywood Boozers and your lawyers, take heed.

And on a cultural note, when my friend got a DUI in her early 20s, she was appauled and so was her family; everyone treated it like a huge mistake. Thus, her situation never got to the point where her mom was complaining that tax payer money was being wasted on her daughter going to jail. Perhaps her mom was saying that the money would be better spent on rehab, but I somehow doubt that.

Good to know that serious mistakes can't always be washed away with money for the wealthy and powerful; for their sake and ours.

A message from my nearly 2 year old:

12 m0.h 230.0
230. bn 23.b in8b vvf ;

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Parade of the Figure Head

I wondered this morning if Barbara and other women, e.g. Dr. Rice, have always tried to salvage Bush's reputation. Why in the world did the White House want it to be seen as his wife's idea to invite the Queen? Would it look too political if Bush did it himself? Does the Queen wonder why he wishes to parse the invitation in this way? It's BIZARRE! I can't imagine my husband saying to anyone, let alone royalty, "It was my wife's idea to invite you all over today, I did not think of it!" What's the message in that?! Everything is so spun out of that White House it was probably Dr. Rice, or Karl Rove who actually came up with this royal parade.

I guess the image they would like to create is of Bush fretting about how to win the already lost "war" and Barbara tapping on his shoulder saying, "Oh honey, let's invite the Queen!!!" I can't decide if that's better or worse than when I found Barbara babbling about restoring grasses and wildflowers on her ranch in Texas earlier in this Iraq debacle.

They are out of touch.

There was so much talk of our alliance. That was the only substance behind the we are, formal allies and we have formal ties (sorry).

Well, I frankly think that a lot of Brits are probably going to flinch when they, like me, see a picture of their Queen next to our "King." In my mind, this dinner does nothing to unify the people of England with us, although many U.S. anglofiles will certainly be pleased by it. Republicans eat that stuff up--those f-ing Tories. So this was all about Bush's popularity at home. No historian is going to go, "Barbara invited the Queen and that changed the whole tone of Bush's failing Presidency!"

They want to be liked (or, maybe I mean, admired).

I hope that the Queen thought it was an opportunity to teach Bush something about war; from an academic but probably more accurate point of view.

Perhaps she said, "George, you're no Winston..." (-:


Saturday, May 05, 2007

Motivation and Interpretation

Last night my husband and I watched our Moxi recording of the Republican "debate." It was relentless in it's "I'm the meanest dog," appeal, and "Reagan is a god," or my new nickname for Reagan, the big woof woof (considering the pack mentality of these guys). You know, all the attitudes that have made us one of the world's most hated nations and a country full of bullies.

What bothered me the most about the rhetoric was the amount of blame they placed on immigrants, pregnant women and Democrats for America's problems. Here are a bunch of men, who are in the majority, blaming minorities for our country's "problems" within their majority's rule; both in society and within government. When Preppy Sam Brownback was asked how he responds to the laundry list of Republican corruptions and prosecutions, he made one corrupt Democrat sound like ten, and then he blamed society--reaching all the way into the homes of unmarried pregnant women. My God, don't have a baby out of wedlock and don't have an abortion or a Republican will bribe an Indian tribe! The way these guys casually stand over the gyneclogist's table is astounding--that's exactly where the Supreme Court has positioned every anti-choicer in our nation and these guys are eager to turn over Roe. No one asked how they can morally live with abortions in New York but not Louisiana.

Over and over the message from these guys was OBEY US WOMEN! FEAR US WORLD! The former message woud go over a lot better with me if they could just lead by example and say, TO MEN, "I don't go around f***ing women I'm not married to, or who would be put in the position of considering an abortion." Perhaps that's difficult to say? They certainly aren't promising any other incentives for bringing healthy pregnancies to term like universal prenatal care and postnatal support.

My point is, these guys take responsibility for stuff they shouldn't (building walls between here and Mexico, unwanted pregnancies), and don't take responsibility for the stuff they should (corruption in politics, government reform, bringing our troops home)!

Chris Matthews asked these men a dozen times, "How do we win the war [in Iraq]?"

What planet is he living on?

And the thing that really got me blogging about this was EVOLUTION.

Brownback, Trancredi, and Huckabee admitted they all think evolution doesn't exist in a yes or no question. These people scare me. There was no follow-up question on that!! That a few people just decide to reject mountains of evidence that scientists overwhelmingly agree on, and then gain political power, is scary. I did a little opposition research and think that the crucial part of this debate has to do with Darwin saying that evolution is "purposeless," or basically, without divine intention. So what? What does Darwin's INTERPRETATION or the data matter? So we don't like what Darwin SAID so we throw out the whole theory, that has HUGE evidence, and logic? Isn't GOD bigger than Darwin's WILL? Doesn't evolution look like a pretty AWESOME, perhaps DIVINE plan to you? I'll just never get creationists--why do they think Darwin's opinion is such a big woof woof?

I couldn't shake the idea that some people were watching the debate to find the biggest bully. That bullies somehow make them feel safe. Even now.