Dear MSNBC and Tucker Carlson,
On the children's book _Mommy is a Democrat_
TUCKER CARLSON: "It is, of course, propaganda, and it's always and everywhere wrong and creepy and should be obviously a bad thing to do to impose your politics on children. Doesn't matter what your politics happen to be. Kids ought to be immune from politics. Be quiet, don't push it on them."
On the children's book _Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!_
TUCKER CARLSON: "...it's a clever book, I have to say. Thanks a lot for coming on. I hope it sells."
The first book simply stresses liberal values, the second book attacks liberals but the first book is the propaganda? HUH?
You didn't call a book ostensibly about conservative "values," that apparently includes making liberals scary "propaganda." Tucker Carlson, are you saying that being a Democrat and having and promoting Democratic values is WRONG and attacking liberals is RIGHT?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Who is the fraudulent voter?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092106B.shtml
The "people's" House just voted to suppress the vote nation wide,
"The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.
If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican."
Why are American's so comfortable with this? I suspect vile, inhuman, indefensible reasons that are spoken only to those who are like-minded [okay, my husband pointed out that showing IDs might just make good sense to some people].
There is no fraud problem with voters going to vote.
The fraud problems are with those administering the voting.
The Nazi's in Germany (before WWII) began changing laws to slowly push certain groups of people out of the German definition of a citizen--eventually Jews and others were not German citizens. Goebbels is still proved right that the biggest lies are believed, and a strong minority in this country seems comfortable with fascism. What does this mean for those of us who aren't comfortable with fascism? I'm really trying not to obsess about this, to believe that people will come around, wake up, and change the direction of this country. But I thought that would happen in 2004.
Peace.
Update: My husband points out that this voter ID bill is a very smart, logical tactic that the Republicans are using because it seems like it's harmless and will make practical sense to people. And we have to say specifically that this is not the type of fraud that is happening; that people now have to verify their current address either with their ballot or their ID and also be registered on the voting rolls at their precinct in order to vote. That's enough bureaucracy, isn't it you "smaller government" Republicans? Why do we need to make grandma in the nursing home got get her picture taken on a state ID when she's been voting in the same place for 15 years? Where's the voter fraud? It's not voter fraud, it's voting machine tampering and political operative/governmental fraud that's happening. Rove is smart, very smart...voting fraud is not our problem, it's the VOTER's problem. Ugh.
The "people's" House just voted to suppress the vote nation wide,
"The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.
If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican."
Why are American's so comfortable with this? I suspect vile, inhuman, indefensible reasons that are spoken only to those who are like-minded [okay, my husband pointed out that showing IDs might just make good sense to some people].
There is no fraud problem with voters going to vote.
The fraud problems are with those administering the voting.
The Nazi's in Germany (before WWII) began changing laws to slowly push certain groups of people out of the German definition of a citizen--eventually Jews and others were not German citizens. Goebbels is still proved right that the biggest lies are believed, and a strong minority in this country seems comfortable with fascism. What does this mean for those of us who aren't comfortable with fascism? I'm really trying not to obsess about this, to believe that people will come around, wake up, and change the direction of this country. But I thought that would happen in 2004.
Peace.
Update: My husband points out that this voter ID bill is a very smart, logical tactic that the Republicans are using because it seems like it's harmless and will make practical sense to people. And we have to say specifically that this is not the type of fraud that is happening; that people now have to verify their current address either with their ballot or their ID and also be registered on the voting rolls at their precinct in order to vote. That's enough bureaucracy, isn't it you "smaller government" Republicans? Why do we need to make grandma in the nursing home got get her picture taken on a state ID when she's been voting in the same place for 15 years? Where's the voter fraud? It's not voter fraud, it's voting machine tampering and political operative/governmental fraud that's happening. Rove is smart, very smart...voting fraud is not our problem, it's the VOTER's problem. Ugh.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Thinking about abundance
I met Steven Covey in New York when I accompanied a friend to one of his talks. I had very little idea of who he was, other than a Mormon who wrote a book about success. I figured that he was a conservative person, a Republican probably, and gave it very little thought. Then his talk stuck with me, and I had an intense conversation with my friend about the idea of approaching life with an attitude of scarcity or abundance. At the time, I thought that thinking in terms of abundance was absolutely irresponsible considering population explosions and global warming. But now I realize that this attitude is more about how an individual relates to other people, rather than how we use and abuse our world.
In an abundant world, we give easily.
In an abundant world, we fear less from our fellow man.
In an abundant world, we don't supress the vote.
Today, Americans live in material abundance and fear others. It's an odd paradigm. I'm not sure how it plays out.
We fear that we don't have enough protection from the terrorists, we fear that our government is too indebted to be overcome, we fear that we do not have enough military to fight bigger wars, we fear that there won't be enough jobs for our children, we fear that our retirements are not going to be easy, we fear the poor and homeless (and that we might become either).
The powers that be encourage all of these fears.
There are leaders that believe we have enough, but in our culture their voices are hard to hear. Enough to protect us from terrorists, enough to fight those that have hurt us or those who still might, enough to restore a balanced budget, enough to restore military readiness, enough to provide education to every child, enough for workers to retire in comfort, enough to share with the poor and house or care for the homeless. Enough for all of us.
Many people believe that if we have enough for "us," there isn't enough for ME.
I get very sad when I think about how people fear the poor or less fortunate and how people vote for personal interests over community interests. I couldn't put my finger on it and then my husband prompted me, "Your dad showed you how people can be helped, and you grew up poor." No one knows me better than my husband.
In an abundant world, we give easily.
In an abundant world, we fear less from our fellow man.
In an abundant world, we don't supress the vote.
Today, Americans live in material abundance and fear others. It's an odd paradigm. I'm not sure how it plays out.
We fear that we don't have enough protection from the terrorists, we fear that our government is too indebted to be overcome, we fear that we do not have enough military to fight bigger wars, we fear that there won't be enough jobs for our children, we fear that our retirements are not going to be easy, we fear the poor and homeless (and that we might become either).
The powers that be encourage all of these fears.
There are leaders that believe we have enough, but in our culture their voices are hard to hear. Enough to protect us from terrorists, enough to fight those that have hurt us or those who still might, enough to restore a balanced budget, enough to restore military readiness, enough to provide education to every child, enough for workers to retire in comfort, enough to share with the poor and house or care for the homeless. Enough for all of us.
Many people believe that if we have enough for "us," there isn't enough for ME.
I get very sad when I think about how people fear the poor or less fortunate and how people vote for personal interests over community interests. I couldn't put my finger on it and then my husband prompted me, "Your dad showed you how people can be helped, and you grew up poor." No one knows me better than my husband.
An accountability drop in the ocean
Dear Fox News,
Morton Kondracke recently claimed that insurgents in Iraq want to help defeat those who oppose Bush's policies in the fall election. On what factual basis does he make that assumption? Did you ever report that al qaeda is suspected to have written a letter celebrating the idea of a Bush presidential re-election? The terrorists believed that Kerry's people would defeat bin Laden (see below). Kondracke said exactly the opposite back then--without facts, without merit. Why can't Kondracke and Fox lobby for your Republican agenda without outright lies? I wonder how you guys justify this to yourselves. In this era of "news" and politics I have to teach my child that adults they see on television who claim that they know what they're talking about just can't be trusted.
According to Reuters, an apparent Al Qaeda letter that surfaced in March stated that the group supports Bush's reelection: "The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.' ... [The letter added,] 'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. ... Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.'" [Reuters, 3/17/04] mediamatters.org
Morton Kondracke recently claimed that insurgents in Iraq want to help defeat those who oppose Bush's policies in the fall election. On what factual basis does he make that assumption? Did you ever report that al qaeda is suspected to have written a letter celebrating the idea of a Bush presidential re-election? The terrorists believed that Kerry's people would defeat bin Laden (see below). Kondracke said exactly the opposite back then--without facts, without merit. Why can't Kondracke and Fox lobby for your Republican agenda without outright lies? I wonder how you guys justify this to yourselves. In this era of "news" and politics I have to teach my child that adults they see on television who claim that they know what they're talking about just can't be trusted.
According to Reuters, an apparent Al Qaeda letter that surfaced in March stated that the group supports Bush's reelection: "The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.' ... [The letter added,] 'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. ... Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.'" [Reuters, 3/17/04] mediamatters.org
More on moral relativism
So my conservative friend got me thinking about corruption in politics and I was fuming because I just don't see how Democrats equal Republicans in the latter's quest to suppress the vote in this country. Ken Blackwell, who is now running for Governor in Ohio, double-take, is exhibit #1 in the number of ways Republicans have blocked, obscured, complicated, and interfered with (often illegally) democracy. Ohio and Florida are easy examples. The only tampering I can recall hearing about with Democrats was Kennedy's people paying people to go vote. So, here's this moral equivalence thing...Republicans and the press will say that both parties are equally bad even though Republicans STOP people from voting, and Democrats have alegedly PAID people to vote (I'm not even sure about that).
Huh?
At worst you can call what Democrats may have done in the distant past a bribe, but in the real world of voting mechanics it's a GAMBLE. No dollar can guarantee that someone punches the card for your guy or girl.
On the other hand, what Republicans do is STOP Americans' right to vote (whether a person does it voluntarily or involuntarily). Doing everything they can to retain power, Republicans have now resorted to controlling voting machines and software so that there isn't even the slightest chance that an opposing party can win. That's no gamble, that's macro DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
I'm amazed that there isn't more outrage about this--it's so basic to our right to govern ourselves.
Update: My husband pointed out that while voting tampering may be the lesser of two evils for Democrats on the individual level (in terms of a person being or not being in the voting booth), the effect of vote tampering by either party is equally damaging to our democratic process. Mea culpa!
Huh?
At worst you can call what Democrats may have done in the distant past a bribe, but in the real world of voting mechanics it's a GAMBLE. No dollar can guarantee that someone punches the card for your guy or girl.
On the other hand, what Republicans do is STOP Americans' right to vote (whether a person does it voluntarily or involuntarily). Doing everything they can to retain power, Republicans have now resorted to controlling voting machines and software so that there isn't even the slightest chance that an opposing party can win. That's no gamble, that's macro DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
I'm amazed that there isn't more outrage about this--it's so basic to our right to govern ourselves.
Update: My husband pointed out that while voting tampering may be the lesser of two evils for Democrats on the individual level (in terms of a person being or not being in the voting booth), the effect of vote tampering by either party is equally damaging to our democratic process. Mea culpa!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Speaking for Midwesterners on women
Dear Mr. [Chris] Matthews,
I don't know what your experience is with Midwestern hunters, but I grew up with them. Since you feel free speaking for them I'll share my own assumptions with you. Some of them have mothers that would run this country like a tight ship. Give that some thought when you slam them for not thinking a woman, or Hillary, could be president.
By the way, there are any number of Democratic leaders who have good ideas on fighting terrorism and getting us out of Iraq--you could start with John Murtha, Harry Reid, or the up and coming Joe Sestak and Jim Webb. I don't know what you guys read, but C-Span and CQ are very helpful sources. Just because Democrats don't all line up and "group think" doesn't mean we lack ideas or are poor leaders--we're a party full of leaders. Republicans apparently enjoy bowing down to the "anointed," (wow, he actually was anointed by our court) whether he deserves our faith or not.
I don't know what your experience is with Midwestern hunters, but I grew up with them. Since you feel free speaking for them I'll share my own assumptions with you. Some of them have mothers that would run this country like a tight ship. Give that some thought when you slam them for not thinking a woman, or Hillary, could be president.
By the way, there are any number of Democratic leaders who have good ideas on fighting terrorism and getting us out of Iraq--you could start with John Murtha, Harry Reid, or the up and coming Joe Sestak and Jim Webb. I don't know what you guys read, but C-Span and CQ are very helpful sources. Just because Democrats don't all line up and "group think" doesn't mean we lack ideas or are poor leaders--we're a party full of leaders. Republicans apparently enjoy bowing down to the "anointed," (wow, he actually was anointed by our court) whether he deserves our faith or not.
Moral Relativism, or IS vs TORTURE
I'm sure I've discussed this issue before. Conservatives often accuse Liberals of using, "moral relativism," and how sinful that behavior is. It's a ridiculous charge because everybody does it and we couldn't function as a society without it. It's a heck of a lot better than moral equivalence, which Conservatives do when they're not using moral relativism, for instance when they compare Bush to Clinton. Their flawed logic is since Clinton lied about sex, any of Bush's myriad lies about the law, war, oil, torture, elections, freedom, just shouldn't matter to Americans. Yes, if Democrats were in charge, Bush would probably be successfully impeached by now.
So tag me a moral relativist because I believe that murder is morally worse than lying! I'm sure you're with me on that.
I keep wondering if the mainstream press is going to report that Bush lied when he said that "America does not torture." I think most people knew he was lying, or technically fudging it, but I wonder if the press will actually say he lied, or actually more the truth, explain how he has redefined the word "torture" for himself. You know, like Clinton questioned the definition of what "is" is. Darn it, I'm such a moral relativist...
Darn it, see, Rove keeps distracting me from the mess in Iraq and the fact that our government is owned by China and big oil!
Peace
So tag me a moral relativist because I believe that murder is morally worse than lying! I'm sure you're with me on that.
I keep wondering if the mainstream press is going to report that Bush lied when he said that "America does not torture." I think most people knew he was lying, or technically fudging it, but I wonder if the press will actually say he lied, or actually more the truth, explain how he has redefined the word "torture" for himself. You know, like Clinton questioned the definition of what "is" is. Darn it, I'm such a moral relativist...
Darn it, see, Rove keeps distracting me from the mess in Iraq and the fact that our government is owned by China and big oil!
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)