I've been recieving Media Matter's www.mediamatters.org updates every day. Yes, they do occassionally make more than a little something about a little thing, but most of the time their facts are absolutely correct--and equally depressing.
Over a week it has become apparent that Democratic leaders are regularly ignored and disrespected. When people say, "Democrats don't have a plan," or "Where are the Democratic leaders?" just say, "You can find them on the internet or C-Span--but the press ignores them."
Sen. Harry Reid's written and spoken response to Bush's 9/11 speech was not reported by ABC or CBS. Chris Matthews insulted Al Gore's leadership compared to "bad manager but charming" Rudy Giuliani with some nebulous judgement. MSNBC lied about a 9/11 poll that measures how Americans blame Bush and Clinton for 9/11 (they lied so that Clinton looked worse.) Republicans get away with lies to the media, Democrats get challenged on truths!! It really is a skewed game--and involves very shallow cults of personality.
I used to think that the media's motivation for promoting Republicans was to follow the ball of the team that's winning (well, they're in power, I wouldn't call them "winning") but I think there's more to the press' motivation than that. I sense that there's a really fundamental core of anti-intellectualism going on. Facts don't matter, truth isn't important, journalism doesn't exist, we're getting, "he said, she said," or rather, "he said this about him," and ego, "This is what I think."
In the press there seems to be little sense of the common good or, gasp, God's will.
Peace
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Democrats would benefit by pointing out, over and over, that Republicans get our arguments wrong--and by stating Democratic arguments simply and clearly.
Republicans have a self-interest to keep in power so they define our arguments as the opposite of what they want. The left takes it for granted that Americans understand that Democrats want to disable the terrorists, that we have more intelligent ways of doing it, and that's why we're like, "Gees, Bush is so incompetent, what the hell is he doing torturing prisoners in addition to not catching the terrorists?" Yes, we are the peace party--which means we are willing to fight for American peace--yet Bush's goal now is not PEACE. On this point, why are we so afraid to invoke Clinton's successful, brief war? There sits Bosnia, Croatia, et. al, peacefully co-existing. Iraq could use such a "let's break up and you live over there and rule yourselves, and we'll live over here. Peace."
In nature, behavior that goes in, comes out, patterns occur as above, so below. We do not benefit ourselves or our soldiers by adopting terrorist tactics. Guess what? The terrorists enjoy having Bush as their warmonger (the terrorists, like American hawks, thrive on having a constant state of war). Chris Mathews has it all wrong when he implies terrorists want Democrats to win...the terrorists helped Bush get re-elected by scaring us with Bin Laden just before the 2004 election (I still think Bush cheated to win the electoral college in Ohio and Florida, at least). The terrorists KNOW that fear works for the Republicans. But who cares about applying logic to big problems these days?
Republicans have a self-interest to keep in power so they define our arguments as the opposite of what they want. The left takes it for granted that Americans understand that Democrats want to disable the terrorists, that we have more intelligent ways of doing it, and that's why we're like, "Gees, Bush is so incompetent, what the hell is he doing torturing prisoners in addition to not catching the terrorists?" Yes, we are the peace party--which means we are willing to fight for American peace--yet Bush's goal now is not PEACE. On this point, why are we so afraid to invoke Clinton's successful, brief war? There sits Bosnia, Croatia, et. al, peacefully co-existing. Iraq could use such a "let's break up and you live over there and rule yourselves, and we'll live over here. Peace."
In nature, behavior that goes in, comes out, patterns occur as above, so below. We do not benefit ourselves or our soldiers by adopting terrorist tactics. Guess what? The terrorists enjoy having Bush as their warmonger (the terrorists, like American hawks, thrive on having a constant state of war). Chris Mathews has it all wrong when he implies terrorists want Democrats to win...the terrorists helped Bush get re-elected by scaring us with Bin Laden just before the 2004 election (I still think Bush cheated to win the electoral college in Ohio and Florida, at least). The terrorists KNOW that fear works for the Republicans. But who cares about applying logic to big problems these days?
Friday, September 01, 2006
Cultural Proportion
I just called a preschool that charges $1260 per month for tution for a 14-month old child.
That is $15,120 per year, before miscellanous fees--that's for 8am - 2pm, three times a week!!
Paying that for three or four years adds up to a private college education!
Now, I agree that quality childcare providers should be handsomely paid, so maybe it's not out of proportion to spend a lot on the very young. Maybe that investment leads to scholarships for those children in the future...but I don't think the stats of infant daycare (maybe preschool) hold up to that. So what are parents paying for?
Luckily, I can hire a quality daycare provider for a few hours a week so that I can continue my career at home. It took me over a YEAR to discover this and it just took calling childcare places and asking questions. I found a very helpful person at the Children's Creative Center. Through her, I found Connections for Children (.org). After several visits to home daycare providers, I found one I'm very comfortable with, hooray!!! If you work at home, a daycare is the best bet for you if your baby is under 3! I hired a babysitter and it would only work for me if she took my son to the park...sometimes it was too hot, too hard to walk, too far...etc.
Peace
That is $15,120 per year, before miscellanous fees--that's for 8am - 2pm, three times a week!!
Paying that for three or four years adds up to a private college education!
Now, I agree that quality childcare providers should be handsomely paid, so maybe it's not out of proportion to spend a lot on the very young. Maybe that investment leads to scholarships for those children in the future...but I don't think the stats of infant daycare (maybe preschool) hold up to that. So what are parents paying for?
Luckily, I can hire a quality daycare provider for a few hours a week so that I can continue my career at home. It took me over a YEAR to discover this and it just took calling childcare places and asking questions. I found a very helpful person at the Children's Creative Center. Through her, I found Connections for Children (.org). After several visits to home daycare providers, I found one I'm very comfortable with, hooray!!! If you work at home, a daycare is the best bet for you if your baby is under 3! I hired a babysitter and it would only work for me if she took my son to the park...sometimes it was too hot, too hard to walk, too far...etc.
Peace
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Political scapegoats
I think it's so illuminating that our President can't say anything without throwing stones at the Democrats. He's says, "Yeah, we're bad, but they [who are not in charge of anything right now] are worse."
1.) That's not true, the Clinton years were good for nearly everybody except Rwandans and Serbs. And who was the last Democrat to lose or quit a war?
2.) Clean up your own house before taking inventory of your opponent, Mister.
3.) He's basically admitting that he's out of ideas. Blame becomes handy there.
Katrina's anniversary will be very interesting...
Peace,
Karen
1.) That's not true, the Clinton years were good for nearly everybody except Rwandans and Serbs. And who was the last Democrat to lose or quit a war?
2.) Clean up your own house before taking inventory of your opponent, Mister.
3.) He's basically admitting that he's out of ideas. Blame becomes handy there.
Katrina's anniversary will be very interesting...
Peace,
Karen
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Maddening debate
I just listened to the second half of a debate between two of L.A.'s leading Jewish and Muslim leaders. Exhausting and circular arguments--and I frankly think that the Muslim came out ahead simply because he kept advocating peace.
I've been on both sides of the Lebanon debate, and now I just don't know enough about it to make a decision. I can say that I hope that there are not thousands of civilian casualties (probably not realistic) and that Israel is effectively taking out Hezbollah. It was a mistake of Lebanon to allow it's borders to become a breeding ground for missiles.
I do know that unless some principled leaders step up in the middle east; leaders that are willing to make sacrifices (why did we force Palestine to have an election when Abas was a good leader?) we're never going to stop warring there.
Lebanon is actually the least of the issues that remain there.
I've been on both sides of the Lebanon debate, and now I just don't know enough about it to make a decision. I can say that I hope that there are not thousands of civilian casualties (probably not realistic) and that Israel is effectively taking out Hezbollah. It was a mistake of Lebanon to allow it's borders to become a breeding ground for missiles.
I do know that unless some principled leaders step up in the middle east; leaders that are willing to make sacrifices (why did we force Palestine to have an election when Abas was a good leader?) we're never going to stop warring there.
Lebanon is actually the least of the issues that remain there.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Out of touch in the Senate, 1 vote away from a police state
I'm analyzing why I have such a violent reaction to the B.S. that happened in the Senate today, and why folks like Sen. Diane Feinstein decided to vote FOR an amendment that will criminalize flag "desecration." If you'd like to know how subjective a term "desecrate" is, feel free to follow the link above.
Anyway, I'm sure my anger toward those who would criminalize causing damage to a SYMBOL has something to do with me being an artist, and that I've used a flag in my artwork. To me, it was not anywhere near desecration, but where's the line? I physically cut out parts of the flag, who's the judge? When does wearing the flag become desecration? When it's on a disfavored body part or person? What if a child drops the flag on the ground, is that desecration? I thought artists are supposed to be the ones that are grossly subjective and emotional, not politicians.
But where is there room for art in a culture that places the value of symbols over people? People have ideas, symbols don't, people live, symbols live inside our minds and, supposedly, can't be harmed by other's aggressions. To suggest that someone can harm our symbols by physically mangling it makes us appear weak, as my brilliant husband observed. For me, to arrest someone for burning our flag makes us look scared of ourselves--not to mention that we're trampling on freedom of expression (formerly one of our most patriotic principles). It may be true that we're scared of each other, but let's work on that instead of criminalizing our own fear in the constitution. We were one vote away from that, and, although I see it as a near miss, that is exactly what the Republicans will run on in the fall.
Let's criminalize our fear and suspicions! Down with personal autonomy and personal expression! Vote republican and you can eat your cake in a police state where no one knows exactly what "desecration" means (big brother likes it that way).
G_d help us.
Peace.
Update: Letter to Senator Feinstein (an edit of last summer's letter to Rep. Harman)...
Dear Sen. Feinstein,
I am very disappointed to learn that you voted to restrict Americans' freedom of expression by supporting a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to define flag desecration (what a job!). This vote on free speech actually strikes at the true power of the American flag. If you vote to "protect" it, it will actually loose it's ability to symbolize freedom for all. It becomes a federal stamp rather than a powerful symbol that weathers the full spectrum of the American people and our passions.
I wonder, what does freedom mean to you? I believe that the principle of freedom means that American symbols can be both respected, venerated and denigrated by Americans. This is one very important reason why America is unique and great. This actual freedom shows, or maybe showed, that we are fundamentally free. But today in America, peace means war, freedom means civil rights restrictions, and we are every day losing a sense of reality and truth and living in an Orwellian fantasy based not on principles of freedom and liberty, but of the political power of special interests and politically generous corporations. To me, a vote for restrictions on freedom of expression (e.g. flag "desecration," and also academic tinkering) is a serious erosion, and actual desecration, of the principles of freedom and liberty for all, and a vote for personal political power at the expense of these principles.
Symbols are not principles. Why should we protect symbols over our principles? That is a fundamental error in American democracy. And as powerful as symbols are, they are not life. They serve as forms of communication, as metaphors, and therefore they are very clearly SPEECH (as the courts clearly recognize). Because they are like speech, their meaning depends completely on context, history, and interpretation.
I am an artist. Does this mean that my art involving the flag that I produced while I was living in New York, in reaction to 9-11, is a desecration of our national symbol [it is a flag with the word "comfort" literally cut out of it]? Who will make these interpretive decisions? What are the full consequences of this restriction on speech for which you are about to vote, and who will it most affect? Why would you give Congress such a controlling power?
To me, individuals' fears of the flag being desecrated put America in a position of weakness, as if we are not strong enough to endure self-criticism (yet we will continue to be criticized by those in other nations). That's tough to support, and I would like to believe that our nation will always be strong enough to endure self-criticism. In spite of your optimistic justification for this vote, you can be certain that an amendment to protect the flag will in fact limit Americans' rights to express their views of America through her symbols--and that's exactly why certain people are gunning for it. In the end, no law can really stop flag desecration (or abortion, for that matter). If someone desecrated your personal flag, or any other person's flag (monument), I'm certain our property laws would be sufficient to arrest those individuals.
I understand that many veterans venerate every image of the flag and think it should never be used as a symbol of dissent or protest. Their personal and emotional relationship to this symbol is something I can sympathize with because I also venerate our flag, and wish it to be a symbol of peace. However, ANY personally emotional or nationalistic reason for stifling the American tradition of freedom of speech is dangerous and not justified by our history of expanding liberties (this tradition is already being seriously undermined by the Bush administration and our Republican congress).
Please reconsider your position and keep the Old Glory a venerated symbol of the people, for the people. Veneration and patriotism is more meaningful when it is freely chosen.
Thank you
Anyway, I'm sure my anger toward those who would criminalize causing damage to a SYMBOL has something to do with me being an artist, and that I've used a flag in my artwork. To me, it was not anywhere near desecration, but where's the line? I physically cut out parts of the flag, who's the judge? When does wearing the flag become desecration? When it's on a disfavored body part or person? What if a child drops the flag on the ground, is that desecration? I thought artists are supposed to be the ones that are grossly subjective and emotional, not politicians.
But where is there room for art in a culture that places the value of symbols over people? People have ideas, symbols don't, people live, symbols live inside our minds and, supposedly, can't be harmed by other's aggressions. To suggest that someone can harm our symbols by physically mangling it makes us appear weak, as my brilliant husband observed. For me, to arrest someone for burning our flag makes us look scared of ourselves--not to mention that we're trampling on freedom of expression (formerly one of our most patriotic principles). It may be true that we're scared of each other, but let's work on that instead of criminalizing our own fear in the constitution. We were one vote away from that, and, although I see it as a near miss, that is exactly what the Republicans will run on in the fall.
Let's criminalize our fear and suspicions! Down with personal autonomy and personal expression! Vote republican and you can eat your cake in a police state where no one knows exactly what "desecration" means (big brother likes it that way).
G_d help us.
Peace.
Update: Letter to Senator Feinstein (an edit of last summer's letter to Rep. Harman)...
Dear Sen. Feinstein,
I am very disappointed to learn that you voted to restrict Americans' freedom of expression by supporting a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to define flag desecration (what a job!). This vote on free speech actually strikes at the true power of the American flag. If you vote to "protect" it, it will actually loose it's ability to symbolize freedom for all. It becomes a federal stamp rather than a powerful symbol that weathers the full spectrum of the American people and our passions.
I wonder, what does freedom mean to you? I believe that the principle of freedom means that American symbols can be both respected, venerated and denigrated by Americans. This is one very important reason why America is unique and great. This actual freedom shows, or maybe showed, that we are fundamentally free. But today in America, peace means war, freedom means civil rights restrictions, and we are every day losing a sense of reality and truth and living in an Orwellian fantasy based not on principles of freedom and liberty, but of the political power of special interests and politically generous corporations. To me, a vote for restrictions on freedom of expression (e.g. flag "desecration," and also academic tinkering) is a serious erosion, and actual desecration, of the principles of freedom and liberty for all, and a vote for personal political power at the expense of these principles.
Symbols are not principles. Why should we protect symbols over our principles? That is a fundamental error in American democracy. And as powerful as symbols are, they are not life. They serve as forms of communication, as metaphors, and therefore they are very clearly SPEECH (as the courts clearly recognize). Because they are like speech, their meaning depends completely on context, history, and interpretation.
I am an artist. Does this mean that my art involving the flag that I produced while I was living in New York, in reaction to 9-11, is a desecration of our national symbol [it is a flag with the word "comfort" literally cut out of it]? Who will make these interpretive decisions? What are the full consequences of this restriction on speech for which you are about to vote, and who will it most affect? Why would you give Congress such a controlling power?
To me, individuals' fears of the flag being desecrated put America in a position of weakness, as if we are not strong enough to endure self-criticism (yet we will continue to be criticized by those in other nations). That's tough to support, and I would like to believe that our nation will always be strong enough to endure self-criticism. In spite of your optimistic justification for this vote, you can be certain that an amendment to protect the flag will in fact limit Americans' rights to express their views of America through her symbols--and that's exactly why certain people are gunning for it. In the end, no law can really stop flag desecration (or abortion, for that matter). If someone desecrated your personal flag, or any other person's flag (monument), I'm certain our property laws would be sufficient to arrest those individuals.
I understand that many veterans venerate every image of the flag and think it should never be used as a symbol of dissent or protest. Their personal and emotional relationship to this symbol is something I can sympathize with because I also venerate our flag, and wish it to be a symbol of peace. However, ANY personally emotional or nationalistic reason for stifling the American tradition of freedom of speech is dangerous and not justified by our history of expanding liberties (this tradition is already being seriously undermined by the Bush administration and our Republican congress).
Please reconsider your position and keep the Old Glory a venerated symbol of the people, for the people. Veneration and patriotism is more meaningful when it is freely chosen.
Thank you
Thursday, June 15, 2006
G_d is the Word, the Word is G_d
I have no intention of reading the blonde conservative's new book, and she does not deserve my rage, but lest she think that there is no outrage over her accusation that liberals are godless, let me voice mine.
I saw her speak on the Tonight Show after Jay Leno questioned the language that she uses to make her points. He characterized it as nasty. She denied that it's nasty (see the link below and form your own opinion about her word choices).
"The wisdom of Ann Coulter"
I'm only human, and am not anywhere near perfect, but I have been trying to make my words "impeccable" lately which means "without sin." It is the First Agreement of the four agreements, a theory that I believe would make this world a much better place. I'm liberal. I guess you could call this political correctness, you could also call it trying to make myself into a woman who feels G_d's presence through my words. It involves showing respect for others as well as myself.
So I'm not enraged that Ann Coulter is labeling me as godless because I'm a liberal, that is simply wrong, I'm enraged because I don't recall hearing her say one true or godly thing tonight. In other words, she's a pot calling the kettle black (when the kettle is actually a brown).
She characterized liberals as an intolerant religion--that we all follow the same mantras and infuse our children, government and schools with our radical agenda. Ha! If that were true we'd be so powerful! The truth is, we have lots of competing ideas. If we are unified as liberals at all, it is possibly the principle that knowledge is good, that learning is good, that honest debate is good, and that science is generally good (and valid). We are tolerant, but are wary of the intolerant. This can lead to intolerance of the intolerant, naturally, but liberal principles include tolerance. She is telling us we're generally intolerant and weak at the same time she's saying we're so powerful. Illogical.
So I wonder which conservative first hired her to go around saying that liberal men are wimpy. That seems to be her whole M.O. Watch out for the godless, wimpy liberal threat!
Huh? That's hardly something to make us shudder--oh wait, that straw man is so that we don't ELECT liberals. It's much better to elect uninformed "strong" conservatives who can't handle wars, national disasters, money or scientific truths. Yeah, that's better for America.
I saw her speak on the Tonight Show after Jay Leno questioned the language that she uses to make her points. He characterized it as nasty. She denied that it's nasty (see the link below and form your own opinion about her word choices).
"The wisdom of Ann Coulter"
I'm only human, and am not anywhere near perfect, but I have been trying to make my words "impeccable" lately which means "without sin." It is the First Agreement of the four agreements, a theory that I believe would make this world a much better place. I'm liberal. I guess you could call this political correctness, you could also call it trying to make myself into a woman who feels G_d's presence through my words. It involves showing respect for others as well as myself.
So I'm not enraged that Ann Coulter is labeling me as godless because I'm a liberal, that is simply wrong, I'm enraged because I don't recall hearing her say one true or godly thing tonight. In other words, she's a pot calling the kettle black (when the kettle is actually a brown).
She characterized liberals as an intolerant religion--that we all follow the same mantras and infuse our children, government and schools with our radical agenda. Ha! If that were true we'd be so powerful! The truth is, we have lots of competing ideas. If we are unified as liberals at all, it is possibly the principle that knowledge is good, that learning is good, that honest debate is good, and that science is generally good (and valid). We are tolerant, but are wary of the intolerant. This can lead to intolerance of the intolerant, naturally, but liberal principles include tolerance. She is telling us we're generally intolerant and weak at the same time she's saying we're so powerful. Illogical.
So I wonder which conservative first hired her to go around saying that liberal men are wimpy. That seems to be her whole M.O. Watch out for the godless, wimpy liberal threat!
Huh? That's hardly something to make us shudder--oh wait, that straw man is so that we don't ELECT liberals. It's much better to elect uninformed "strong" conservatives who can't handle wars, national disasters, money or scientific truths. Yeah, that's better for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)