10 steps toward a closed society

I thought I saw Naomi Wolf walking down the street today and I wondered what she's been up to. Then I found this link going from Swiftspeech to the man who walks in our name. Wolf puts all the dots together and shows us why we have to act now to prosecute the criminals that are running our country.

There are too many Americans who are complacent about torture, rolling back civil rights, and Homeland Security targeting Americans, not terrorists. What the hell is Blackwater doing getting government funding? Why the hell should the President have greater power to call a national emergency now? Why are we tasering students in Florida and placing academics and Code Pink on Homeland Security lists???

If I were pregnant with a girl, I'd want to name her Naomi.

Peace.

Why the urgency in 2000?

My posts have a bit of drama in them since I've been battling the flu with myself and my two year old for going on ten days.

I woke up from a nap today lucidly thinking about how the Supreme Court intervened in 2000 and handed George Bush the Presidency. I was wondering, shouldn't we investigate that and impeach some judges (as my husband informed me was possible later in the evening)? I mean, what was the urgency? Why couldn't we wait to count the votes? What threat was there to our country that made a result so incredibly needed ASAP? We had till January! And most importantly, the court's choice was WRONG.

I think I was thinking about this because it's so easy to look at Pakistan and think, "Hey you, your government is corrupt and we don't believe you're seeking justice." Well, that slap sticks to us in spades, even without the suicide bombers to boot.

To Life, or Death, which do you choose?

In my mind there are actions that people take that either move toward life, or move toward death. It became very obvious to me recently that there are a lot of fundamentalist religious types who are praying for death. There are thousands of people (at least) who are really looking forward to an Armageddon where Jesus, yes Jesus, returns to earth and kills millions of non-believers. The man who wrote "The Fall of the House of Bush," has said that he's stood in Israel with fundamentalists who can't wait to see the dead on fields there.

I get the same feeling from some people who hunt. Mmmm, death, how soon can I cause it and watch it, and even eat it? It's the same with the armchair soldiers. GQ has a great article this month that reveals how much we love war carnage.

So while many of us believe in a Jesus (or Christ) that worked for peace, compassion and love; there are very many Christians who believe in a militaristic Jesus who punishes and kills. The human condition is in deep peril, and we must all work hard to keep our peace loving lights lit and growing while snuffing out the fires of hell in the hearts of men on earth.

Peace.

Be scared about your children, and scare your children.

This is outrageous. All in the name of saving children from harm! It shows how a friendly stranger can lure our young children into dangerous situations. No shit. I have no idea how this video would prevent these occurrences. Do they advocate using the tactics in the video? If so, what doesn't come out in teaser for the DVD is this:

1) Fooling children teaches them to not trust US--it's the adults crying wolf and it's a foolish thing for a parent to do to a child.

2) In both of these situations, the children trusted actors who, as far as I can tell, weren't actually criminal or insane. Not to say that the criminal and insane can't be pathologically charming; but I remember being a suspicious kid who could read people pretty well. So these kids actually displayed good judgment about the PEOPLE who approached them--only to have that judgment later questioned within a humiliating "don't you listen to me about strangers?" gotcha atmosphere. Great job, parents--it's like morphing a puppy into a monster!

Let's make sure these kids are scared to ask for help from anybody when they might actually need it!

Which gets to my political point here; we are in such a culture of FEAR that we're teaching our kids that they must fear all adults. No, we can't leave our kids alone until they are a mature 16+, but that doesn't mean we have to scare the bejesus out of them, and us, until then.

Not surprising, but the Republicans are trying to change the fight

Schmog found this--he's working overtime so I get to post it! So the administration has been controlling which climate scientists talk to the media. Not a big surprise, but check out the Republican "defense" which denies nothing but attacks Democrats motives.

Now you can e-mail the FEC

There's a chance Act Blue's small donors may not have their donations matched by Federal Funds--we can comment until Dec. 13. This will help the FEC see the light.

Hillary's oppo research

At first, I thought the Hillary/Obama argument over when Obama wanted to be President was ridiculous (well, it still is, who cares, these guys are obviously ambitious) but today I just realized HOW CREEPY it is that Hillary quoted Obama's elementary school teacher. Can you imagine someone looking through your past to that level of triviality? And is that the worst thing they can drag up about him?! It at once makes him smell like a rose and them look like rats. Republican rats, in fact, that care less about real issues and more about personal attacks. I can just hear her at the debates decrying personal attacks while she's dishing them out!

Mitt's Speech--The Pandering!

CNN Headline News

I just heard them reporting that Bush and Cheney were briefed on the NIE in August, but they didn't note that this contradicts Bush's recent speech where he said he only learned of the NIE last week. I e-mailed Headline News to try to get them to ask more questions.

The assault rifle

In what civilized world is an emotional human being allowed to own an object that will allow him to stand in one place and kill people from 100 yards?

Recently, a vigilante in Texas walked outside of his house and killed allegedly black thieves who robbed his neighbor in Texas, and a suicidal Nebraska teenager killed innocent mall employees and shoppers in Omaha.

Both events took minutes.

The 2nd Amendment does not protect this behavior, and the NRA neglects the fact that guns AND people kill people. I don't care WHERE we live (urban or rural), we need to make guns harder to get and use against people.

Anyone who argues against severe limits for guns is advocating easy, casual murder. The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own guns in our homes, it does not protect every gun, or the unlimited use of them.

LATER:
Okay, one of the reasons this kid decided to shoot a bunch of people, he said, was to become FAMOUS. Why did President Bush grant him this wish by addressing the event at a special press conference? Can't he just call the individual families himself? Let's just inspire more nuts to go shoot people--BushCo just doesn't care about the public welfare!

Getting to know Huckabee

There are a lot of people on the left and right loving on Mike Huckabee. He's charming, he's disarming, funny, empathetic, and, frankly, nuts. I can see him winning the Republican nomination. Yet his judgment is so skewed that he believes that the physical world started with Adam and Eve, and in our time he sees rapists as sympathetic victims who need active protection from him. Or else he's just out to free rapists who have targeted women related to Bill Clinton.

I look at Huckabee and I see a role player. A man who lives a successful public life but has some kind of private darkness (I now suspect him of misogyny and severe political bias). Lots of ministers I've met live a double life (especially, I would guess, former ministers). These ministers have ambition that is not fulfilled by taking care of the ill, the dying, the needy. They need fame and glory. They need to ascend in the public eye--whether that's done by impressing and seducing women in the church, or running for political office. Is Huckabee that kind of minister? I suspect that he is.

Peace.

Where are the stories about us helping new schools in Iraq?

If we have failed to prevent the murdering of Christians in Iraq, and probably helped motivate these deaths because of our own violence, and Christians can no longer live in FREEDOM, how do we save Iraq from itself?

Where's CNN?

Making another Gore v. Bush...

Republicans were supposed to gather signatures and money by the end of November. The L.A. Times is downplaying it, probably for Republican's benefit. Let's keep our eye open for this electoral college reapportionment effort that will probably end up being challenged in the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional (not decided by our legislature)...right around Nov. 2008.

The big lies

It is absolutely 1984 that Karl Rove is falsely blaming Democrats for rushing to war in Iraq (the bigger the lie, the more it's believed, right?) and that President Bush is now calling Congress a do-nothing. If the Democrats in Congress needed in any help, Bush is now providing it because his athttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.giftacks on Congress make ME want to defend "impeachment off the table" Pelosi. Thom Hartman has noted on his show that the House has actually had an ambitious agenda, that gets stalled or changed in the Senate and then gets vetoed at the top (e.g. Healthcare insurance for children).

For Bush to say Congress isn't doing anything cries out for a "then what the hell are you vetoing? Oh yeah, poor children's access to healing."

The Senate did this!!

And who needs enemies when your "friends" report the "news" like this: Feingold responds to Joe Klein

And of course, WWW III and Iran.

Obama wins Iowa

If that happens, all bets are off. For that midwestern, practical state to chose Obama over Clinton and Edwards will be a clarion call to every American that this is a new era, a new time to acknowledge that we have a great leader in our midst.

When I honestly think about what kind of President each person could be, the policies become less important. Carter and Clinton were both Presidents that couldn't get their progressive agendas promoted. I could see Kucinich, Edwards and Clinton suffering the same fate VERY easily. But with Obama; I see Lincoln, I see Kennedy, I see greatness in this very human man.

Making an "other"

One thing I really relate to with Obama is that he sees himself as a person who's always felt like he was a bit of an outsider. I moved from England to a small, southern style town in the midwest before the age of 10, the daughter of a liberal Christian minister in a conservative, Catholic, farm town. I never "belonged." I rarely go back. But that town and those people are very much a part of the American that I've become.

Barack Obama is as American as anyone. Only Indian Americans can claim native pedigree. The rest of Americans can only claim deeper generations than others; I see that Obama's pedigree goes at least as far back as Cheney's, so there's no competition there.

In my town there was a distinct line between black and white America. This is the most divisive thing about Obama's candidacy. Even black Americans don't think he can win. I know liberal Americans who don't think he can win. But if not this black American, who? If not now, when?

I'm not aware of anyone (maybe Pat Robertson) who says Obama can't win because he's black in public--but it's probably a fear of every one of his supporters. Instead, there seems to be a different kind of "othering," attempt, tying him to the Muslim other. Perhaps it is a more accepted form of bigotry. The article above should immediately define Obama as the Christian he has CHOSEN to be (not just a "member" of "blank"). But there is an effort to make him foreign, unlike you, unlike America. These are the people who are making intelligent, patriotic American leaders _our enemy_. These people don't just come from the right.

The Judges

I didn't see the debate but this looks like a very salient analysis of the hearts of Republicans.

Hearsay

Yes, this is all conjecture, opinion and suspect. But I just can't help thinking:

WE DO NOT HAVE TO ELECT THE CLINTON SAGA.

The President did lie under oath. He had a choice.

Sex sells on the Red Network

Here we have Fox caught with their lenses on exploitation. Particularly disturbing to me is the exploitation of women's bodies on sexual show while they discuss violent crimes against women. That this is practiced regularly and consciously is a reprehensible, misogynistic attack against women's sexuality; particularly Western women.

I'll wait for the right woman to break that glass ceiling

My husband just reminded me of what Thurgood Marshall said about Clarence Thomas:
Shortly before he died, in 1993, he warned against "picking the wrong Negro," adding "there's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite...."

Last night, Barack Obama correctly showed how Hillary Clinton's argument about not raising taxes was exactly the kind of number twisting that we could expect from a Republican. Do you know any Firemen who make over 100K? They should, but even if such a situation does exist (in her part of the country, I guess) it still puts Mr. Fireman in the top 6% of Americans, and as Obama made clear, that is not the Middle Class.

Today it appears that the elite on the left in this country, including bloggers, are going with Hillary's answer over Obama's, her first response was "That's a tax increase." Hi Ms. Republican--you're equally comfortable sheltering America's top 6%!!

I hear no substance from Hillary Clinton that makes me think her policies are going to be any less hawkish than the neo-cons (e.g. her recent vote on Iran, and her defense contractor lobbying money), or any more economically progressive than Margaret Thatcher (she has all kinds of multi-national corporate support). I quite suspect that she will be very militaristic and in favor of privatizing any number of social programs (Medicare, Social Security, schools, etc.). Her universal healthcare proposal sounds just like No Child Left Behind; a federal mandate without funding.

The only reasons I find people justifying their support for her is because of 1) Bill Clinton; 2) Bill Clinton's cabinet and staff 3) Breaking the ultimate "glass ceiling" 4) She gets along with Republicans and they might vote for her (isn't that nice that they like her now?!

These are the liberals, like Hillary, who think that getting along with others is the most important value we have; never mind that other important principles have been subsumed by this one and that conservatives don't honor "getting along with others" at all.

Peace.

I'll add another reason to paragraph 5, 5) The person supporting her is IN the upper 6% of income earners/inheritors.

Bush, Cheney and the U.N. override Iraq's representative government

Thanks, Vigilante. I think every American should understand what's happening here.

Victimization Appeal

I get an e-mail from Hillary Clinton's campaign asking for cash before the next Democratic debate to show her a "massive" show of support since she's "under attack." Does that appeal to women? If so, YUK. This on the day after I read the intro to Edwards moving 70+ page plan for America that he's distributing to every Iowan (I think that's who). What's your plan, Hillary? She sounds like Nixon, "...she's attacking the problems facing America." Like what? Iranian terrorists? So I gave $15 to Howard Dean to get more Californians donating to help our state elect Democrats (his Democrats, preferably).

Keeping the real Rudy in the press...

We can have all kinds of friends, but who do you hire?

Money in Politics, who's winning in the House?

Transcripts with links to actual debate footage.

A handy reference for Presidential Candidates.

Good Stuff

An anti-caging law!

Making Contact to Impeach!!

Impeachment has started in Congress, they need to hear from their constituents! If you want to support this process, here's a link to an easy form that will alert all of your Congressional reps and newspapers, if you want to check all those options. I also called Speaker Pelosi to voice my support to impeach Cheney (and Bush) at 1-202-225-0100; since the Democratic leadership appears to be out to lunch when it comes to defending our Constitution.

Although this story reports the poll that shows most Americans support impeachment, few media stories actually report that poll and instead quote House Republicans who think that Americans will be embarrassed by Democrats wanting impeachment. In other words, the media creates the "news" they want to "report." They are hardly representing Americans’ opinions anymore than the President does.

In my opinion, at the very least, Vice President Cheney committed treason when he revealed the American CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, risking her life and those who knew her. This crime is just the tip of the iceberg for this administration, now making their way to war with Iran even though they've fumbled Iraq (don't trust your own eyes, they say!).

Impeachment Now!

I called the Majority Leader's office and got right through. I just told them that I was calling to voice my support for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They asked me where I was calling from and thanked me. I e-mailed Pelosi at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov. I still need to contact our local reps; but I think it's important that we communicate with the House leadership right now!!

Bill Clinton

Sure, he's a wonderful communicator and he has sex appeal.

Why do women and even some men want this charmer back in the White House?

It's like the stereotype of a woman wanting the man that keeps cheating on her. Not only is he literally a philanderer, he's also been unfaithful to gay issues and progressive economic policies. Don't Ask Don't Tell; NAFTA; Welfare to Work; etc. And I think he's the friendly side of the Clintons--but he won't be in charge.

Wake up, people.

Gender and humility

I've never read a comprehensive biological study of gender but I'm eager to. I got caught at a mother's meeting last night throwing my son into a stereotype of "male behavior" along with other kids. Ironically, I'm usually the first one to point out that girls can be like boys, and boys like girls, but it was easy to just lump everybody together last night in "defense" of my son's particular personality (highly energetic, not much for the sit-down activities; yet a softie with kittens and manners). This when I have a close friend with a son who will sit through library readings, and a cousin with a girl that runs as fast as my kid.

Anyway, I was reminded in a very kind way that boys and girls overlap in so many ways and traits that it's pointless to assign any trait to their gender...those traits just are. So if I'm ever fighting his elementary school to include more physical activities, I hope I remember this.

Peace.

What really happened?

To me, it sounds like this Republican got robbed while he was cross-dressing and hiring a gay prostitute--and he wanted to report it without revealing he was gay (or something like being gay). This is just stupid and sad! Be free, Republican people!

Update: Okay, so the prostitute claims that Curtis gave him his wallet!! That cracks me up that people are just believing that! Oh yeah, we gotta believe the prostitute because he's out?! Again, this is just stupid and sad. The reporter says, "What's going on?" as in, what's going on with Republicans getting involved in gay sex scandals right and left? SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL REPRESSION! It's part of the conservative world view. Like I said, be free, people!

The Hillary Debate

I had heard some analysis of the last Democratic debate before I actually saw it. Most of what I had heard seemed off!

People on the radio were saying that they were disappointed that Obama didn't attack Hillary. Hardly! His opening remarks were scathing and opened her up for the rest of the evening.

Which, by the way, seemed to be the focus of the debate. I agree with my husband that giving Hillary such fearsome attention empowers her campaign...but I also agreed with most of the criticisms. I think she's got a bit of the war disease George Bush has when it comes to assessing threats...and that she's a hawk despite her "diplomatic" rhetoric. The case in point is her very undiplomatic vote to define Iran's army as terrorists. Even if that's technically true, I think Biden was right about the dangerous message it sends to our enemies. The saving grace might be that even though she herself likes missiles a lot; her staff would probably (hopefully) be more diplomatic than she.

Another analysis I heard on NPR said that the differences between candidates was subtle and not important. For instance, they said there was little difference between getting troops out of Iraq and keeping troops in the region. No difference? So then these guys probably think there's no difference between compromising with HMOs and eliminating HMOs...or say, passing Bush's agenda or voting against Bush's nominees.

I seriously despise the way the press tries to manipulate our opinions of these people...just that facts or even just the policies, please.

A good summary of Republican negatives!

"If they want to talk about “negatives,” perhaps Democrats should note that the Republican field is littered with candidates awash in “negatives” — important ones. We find men who, like George Bush, are grossly uninformed and even less curious, and who, like George Bush, hold dangerous, authoritarian views about government’s power over individuals, along with arrogantly imperialist views about how American should interact with the world. We see political chameleons — Guiliani, Romney, McCain — who abandon long-held principles and openly pander to those they once abhorred. Can anyone trust these people with our national security or anything else that matters?

At a time when the American people are crying out for effective, honest and fair government, the Republican candidates come across as mostly anti-government, biased against the middle class and the poor, and especially immigrants. Americans respond to tolerance, but these men are intolerant Christianists, sometimes anti-non-Christian and often anti-science. And to a public sickened by lawlessness, these men come across as anti-Constitution, arguing the President is above the law. Most are indifferent to how America must look when it sanctions torture, rendition, indefinite imprisonment without habeas corpus. Where the public wants accountability and limits on abusive powers, the Republicans support unchecked spying, amnesty/immunity for lawbreakers and aggressive wars."

Written in defense of Clinton (I'm not voting for her in the primary, but would in the general election).

How many days until we bomb Iran, Dick?

So Rice is cutting off banks and condemning an influential Iranian militia...what affect could that possibly have in Iran? Any ideas?

So there's no change in policy in Iran (which is really only the rhetoric of one man, as far as I can tell), then we bomb?

As far as I can tell, there's nothing stopping these nuts from doing this except a public campaign by move-on. I think we need to get verbal commitments from our Senators and Representatives, today.

Basically, if we need to bomb Iran, we have time to make that decision after these neocon nutjobs are out of office.

Can you imagine if that's what the 2008 election will come down to? Bomb Iran or not?

Class warfare

No one knows exactly why Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq. I think at this point it's easy to see that oil was a big motivator, and so was the WW2 idea that we could fight a grand war and seem to be beating terrorists (after all, how many terrorists were we going to find in Iraq? It should have been easy.).

I personally think that it was the simple sin of greed.

I recently heard a story, from a good source, about the Saudi King and Queen when they go to Las Vegas (usually in a stretch luxury vehicle). They spend millions of dollars there. So much so that they have been given a multi-million dollar diamond necklace as a parting gift by the hotels and casinos. It's a kind of wealth that seems unimaginable to me (not desired) but it occurred to me that perhaps THIS is what the Bushes, Cheneys and Roves want for themselves. They want to be as rich and internally _powerful_ as the Saudi royalty. As I write about it the whole thing seems less profound than when the idea first occurred to me, but then, what else do they want? This seems to make sense to me...as trivial as it seems now (since these are not my values).

I'm hoping to write several entries on my criticism of elites (the very wealthy and influential) in our country. I think they are a mess and we need to reform our economic system and cultural ideals radically and quickly.

Bush threats

I heard on Air America that Cheney and three others have leaned on Chris Matthews to keep quiet about his opinions and criticisms of Bush and the war. It reminded me of a conversation I had with friends from Texas years ago who THEN accused the Bush family of committing murder over the drug trade. These fears and threats might be exactly why so many Republicans and Democrats vote with Bush...personal fear. It's wrong, and these guys should be impeached.

Contrasts

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

It's stunning to me that Bush and Congress awards the Dalai Lama a medal for peace when they all drum for war. The Dalai Lama's visit to a sitting President has never been this public or spectacular (is this one of Laura's ideas?). It also occurs on the same day that Turkey decides to send in troops in northern Iraq to attack Kurds. All that Bush can say to that is that this action is not in Turkey's interest...which is a moronic statement. Meanhwhile, the recognition for Armenians that was working its way through Congress is dying. That is because Turkey might stop letting us use a military base if we pass it. That is also moronic.

Why does the Dalai Lama accept an award from these devils of war? Perhaps China is right about him, this god to Hollywood stars, even though they are wrong in their domination of Tibet.

Peace

Okay, so it has become an issue

I thought I'd try to stop knocking Obama on this point, but now it seems to be becoming a central theme of his campaign. It just sounds like, "I told you so!" and "I was RIGHT!" which is so annoying even though I do it (see, the things that bother me the most I actually do).

Democrats and money

My husband and I have had personal wounds of shame inflicted on us as a result of Edwards' seemingly purist putting-your-money-where-your-mouth-is talk (which we don't think he's been absolutely pure about); but nevertheless, he's still a convincing, passionate and authentic progressive candidate who's economic priorities make sense (and this campaign is not about us!).

The Boys Who Cry Wolf

I was just ruminating about how it is that Justice Clarence Thomas LIED through his judiciary committee testimony and he still got appointed to the Supreme Court.

How is it that our President LIED during his debates about nation building and now gets to do it unquestioningly. How is it that he has continually lied to us about Saddam Hussein, our government's spying capabilities, the state of the war/occupation, and any number of things (I'm certain there's a list somewhere that's easy to find) and he gets away with it?

I'm sure people are breaking laws and getting away with it.

I don't know what I'm going to tell my children, because, quite honestly, you can lie your way through and become a Supreme Court judge and the President of the United States. That's what's real when we peel all the filters and arguments and layers of crap away.

The conservatives are supposed to be the reward and punishment party. Where are the punishments?

I can say this, I have NO PATIENCE for any liberal or conservative or journalist that looks away when they have a responsibility or happenstance to hold someone accountable for untruths and law breaking...it's got to start with parenting, too.

May Peace Be With These Men and Their Families

These men fought a war, and died during the occupation.

Do as I say...

Do as I say, not as I do, says Mr. Foot in My Mouth Ohio.

If they can spin not giving children health insurance, we're really in trouble.

Possibility that Guliani is behind CA electoral vote scheme

Thanks, Kevin Drum.

Dan Rather; why now?

This is stinging; even worse than Daniel Shorr's scathing NPR analysis of the sham that is American anchor "journalism."

Art and Politics, Amen

I'll buy his download or his album, or both. This guy's got courage; I wonder if NBC is reeling.

14 Democrats voted to stop the war, 1 Republican joined them

This is appalling. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Swiftspeech. I'm trying to think of the best way to show my indignant anger toward my representatives' actions.

Beyond Fatalism--VOTE

I was listening to Thom Hartmann on Air America yesterday and he outlined the caging problem that's probably going to happen in Ohio and Florida (and probably elsewhere) the next vote. He played an audio clip of a conservative preacher (I didn't recognize the name) who was saying how he doesn't want everybody to vote...that there is no way fundamentalists can have their agenda IF EVERYONE VOTES. He called representative Democracy "Goo-Goo," Good Government, which he is AGAINST.

Beyond the red Democrats in Congress, we are simply at war with those who are actively trying to suppress the vote in this country. A simple way we can fight is TO VOTE. Another action is to check out our local and state voting practices (paper ballots, requirements, etc.) so that we can educate our friends and relatives.

Libraries are very good sources for voting info, so next time you check out a book, check out how our Democracy is functioning in your town.

Peace.

God: My Third Eye

I've been writing this for awhile, I finally took out most of the preachy parts about MY idea of God and put that somewhere else, but I really wanted to respond to Bill Maher's attack on religions the other evening. He basically called Mormonism luny crazy, and Christianity and Judaism weren't any less so. My point is, let's attack people's policies, not their cultural beliefs and familial traditions--even though religious people often attack our ways of being and beliefs, we can be bigger than they are.

May 2007

In the past few decades there have been a whole slate of either/or arguments in the political arena. It has been a tactic of the Republicans to divide Americans into conservative or NOT. If you want to keep abortion legal, you're a child killer. If you want to keep the environment clean, you're anti-business. If you're pro-union, you're a communist. If you are against the war, you're a weak-kneed, pinko commie. If you think about the needs of poor people, you're for big government (they are for big military). Anything that disagrees with the conservative worldview is considered immoral by them. That's how they think: good vs. evil.

Now, according to a growing number of voices on the LEFT, you're either a religious nutjob who believes in the fundamentalist God or you're an atheist (or Maher's "rationalist" which just cracks me up; do you and your family and friends always act rationally?!).

The atheists win their own arguments because they are based on empirical perception and define God by a biblical account of God, which is ripe with human imperfection, projections and bathed in metaphor. Yet atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, like fundamentalists, take the bible LITERALLY and therefore either give us or deny us a completely flat, predictable, imperfect and very often loathsome picture of God.

I am a liberal Methodist's preacher's kid (my father was born into a non-practicing Jewish family), I am now Jewish, and have settled on a pretty practical and ecumenical picture of God, or what I refer to as the force of life that people represent in different ways, "G-d", "Christ," "Buddha," "Allah," "the Goddess," "The Source," "Being," etc. For instance, it is my belief, and my husband's belief, that most people who describe their faith as a God that intervenes in their lives in judgmental and physical ways, completely obfuscate a spiritual sense of God. I was agnostic for a long time because so many believers were imperfect, and simply because I would not believe that God could save me from a car accident but let a child starve to death in Africa--I still don't believe in that kind of Republicanesque God of reward and punishment.

A wise woman I once knew in Ohio, a brilliant librarian, who was unique in her look and height and presence in this world (and rejected by superficial people), died shortly after telling me the following in response to my agnosticism:

"My darling, no one has ever accurately described God to you, they can't."

As inscrutable as that seemed to me then, it was also true, and remains true. God is a personal and universal truth that no one can be CERTAIN about. What the fundamentalists and the Atheists have IN COMMON is their certainty that their truth is THE truth. Faith in God is a personal truth that can't be verified by science or logic; it's a surrender of certainty, and an embrace of the subjective experiences of being and life's mysteries that people almost universally attribute to something like "God."

This is why no true believer can offer the "fact-finding" Atheist a proof of God, for whatever proof I find, it is in my own eyes, my own consciousness and imagination; my child's life, the connection with my husband, the deep bonds I have with family and friends. These experiences and relationships just seem to be biological and chemical (without awe) to the atheist. Is it this lack of spiritual appreciation that compels the atheist to try to disconnect any sense of holiness from the faithful; for his own rational purity; his version of truth? Sir, I am with you in the ambition to stop the evils that man commits in God's name, any abomination towards man is an abomination to both man and God, but I am against you in your efforts to deny individuals that which cannot be proven, only felt, in the most tenuous and imperfect ways in which we are capable.

I agree with the atheist argument that many religious "believers" do nothing to make the world a better place. The truth is, man either helps or doesn't help man because of moral motivations, either with God or without God and that is the only issue. I have no problem pointing out religious hypocrisy, but moral or immoral actions always trump religious declarations!

On the right it seems that the arguments FOR God are an effort to control people and how we think, now on the left, it seems the arguments AGAINST the existence of God are in order to INHIBIT people's spirituality and, more important, to be academically right (a weakness I myself enjoy). How can one be right about eliminating even the possibility of a greater life force than us--what ego?! Such a declaration does not seem logical or rational to me. The premise is that we know all possibilities, yet we in no way understand everything there is to know about nature, life and consciousness; and all the possible explanations for it all!

Of course, believing in God probably isn't rational either, but that's half the point. Half our brain isn't rational, we're emotional beings (that's a good reason why we shouldn't have guns). Admitting that a belief in God is somewhat irrational doesn't give "believers" any excuse to act on God's behalf to do anything irrational to others! Yes, this irrationality should forever be separate from the governance of the people by the people.

In my view, the argument to prove or disprove God in our culture is a waste of time; it makes far more sense to prove or disprove the EFFECTS of humankind upon each other and this world. In the end, it just doesn't matter if we believe in God or not, it's how we treat each other.

I beg atheists to just concentrate on arguing against the sins of man, rather than the blessed and inherent irrationality of faith. Why would a lack of belief in God make a more compelling argument about culture? The faithful don't have a more compelling argument about culture just because they are faithful either (and we can all make that clear). Those who go against man, go against God, period, whether they invoke God's name or not.

It's not what we say, it's what we do--and that's all there is to it.

Don't step on my imaginary third eye (-;

Jena

I haven't found any news reports that give the whole chronology of events so I have yet to make a judgment on this. I can say that conservatives who buy "reward and punishment" morality will not sympathize with six people beating up one--even if the one provoked it--they will see the six as criminals (and yes, conservatives are very often racist), liberals will see the six as victims of justice gone bad (something that just doesn't seem to concern conservatives). I do think that kind of beating is vigilantism plain and simple and ought to be tried as such...but attempted murder? Was there any attempt to report the initial beating to police? Didn't the six turn in the "victim's" gun to police (oh, those kids didn't beat up anybody and still got arrested!)?

I will say that I'm glad there's a network of bloggers that are monitoring sentencing problems--and organizing people. Hooray!

Update:

This seems to be accurate reporting and really shows the infuriating injustice of what's going on in Louisiana. After the protest march, one actively racist underage "white" kid gets a DUI and is out of jail in one night while police call him a "prankster" which makes me think the cops are also KKK supporters/actors, and "black" kids get the maximum bales and sentencing. It's simply wrong. Thanks, Let's Talk:

Jena

The trap of Playing Nice

I'm still reading Moral Politics and I've finished the "Strict Father" morality (the idealistic conservative) and am in the midst of the "Nurturing Parent" morality (the idealistic liberal) and have found a really interesting explanation for why Congress is acting the way it is (especially Democrats). I'm paraphrasing, but it seems that most liberals place "get along with others morality (social ties)" above requiring a "nurturing world/morality." This differs greatly from the much more confrontational morality of many conservatives who consider anyone who disagrees with them evil (I've actually been more like a conservative in that line of thinking in my not so distant past--in fact, I have to consciously remind myself that moralities other than my own are not evil).

It's kind of sad, but also unavoidable, that when a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they are ten times more likely to compromise with the conservative than the conservative is to compromise with the liberal. That's because we're trapped: we can't be the peacemaker (one of our leading values) and the dictator at the same time. The conservative has it easy; their dictatorial manner is considered "moral authority" and that's one of their leading values. So our peaceful, moral worldview/plan gets compromised, again and again.

Doesn't that make some sense of the world today?

Explaining Republicans believing in staying in Iraq...

This reminds me I still need to finish my book Moral Poltics!

Progressive loyalties vs. Being Right

Fox "news" and other media are having fun pointing out how liberals are attacking each other. It's so great for them since they pretty much stand in lockstep loyalty except when somebody might be publicly outed as gay (or bisexual).

This begs the question; How important is it to undermine a person's good message with a personal attack? I don't think you can get more personal that what a person eats. How does PETA know that Gore doesn't get his meat from a small, local farmer or hunters? He's from Tennessee and I'm from Missouri and I know that's easy to do--wealthy or not--all you need is a big freezer.

I've often criticized politicians for some imperfection that I'd like "righted," and I'm now rethinking that line of thinking. I will ask myself, "How important is this issue?" Granted, PETA is right that meat production is a huge environmental problem, but I think they could have negotiated with Gore to get his help with that message, say praising vegetarian lifestyles, rather than asking for a conversion and then attacking him personally--yuk.

Peace

Fred who?

I'm just blown away that this guy thinks he has any business running for President. He's in total denial about Iraq and global warming--oh who cares what foreign policy experts and scientists think. There is little if any difference between this guy and George W. Bush--they think they can project their fear-based world views on everybody else. He's living in opposite world and is comfortable doing so despite the reality of the real world in which the rest of us live. May his campaign be as short lived as his limited perception of reality.

Peace.

Toxic Pots

We only use stainless steel pots and pans, which is a bummer for scrambled eggs, but at least we're not killing any birds. Dupont seems to be saying a dead canary in the coal mine just isn't important for human conclusions.

Hillary started life as a Goldwater Republican

Enlightened liberals and a reconsideration of "emotional" political tactics

I've just finished reading the Power of Now which is a great spiritual inspiration and a call for emotional balance in one's life. The idea of enlightenment becomes simple...live in the present, the NOW and nothing should bother you! Become close to that watcher inside of you and you will be at peace (not necessarily HAPPY) all the time; plugged into God (the Source, the inexplicable unmanifested consciousness that unifies all of life) inside and shared by all of us; although we are our own point of consciousness within the greater whole.

One sign of an enlightened individual is one who can state their position without defensiveness, fear, anger, etc.

This makes me rethink the appeal to "emotional" voters. Anger and defensiveness are based on fear...and who needs to show or appeal to fear? The Right. I'm not against liberals "using" emotion to win elections; but we must acknowledge that this would be an absolute fake to such an enlightened individual. The only thing that Obama lacks, according to the Eckhardt definition if I may, is too much of an identification with Obama's ego. He must realize that he cannot control how the "image" of Obama is spun, he should not worry about it! It's like he's an artist and the artist's intention matter's very little to the resulting work of art, or in this case, to his political candidacy.

I haven't watched the Lehrer Newshour in months; I used to watch it daily. My husband and I started getting angry with it because they constantly put on a "liberal" and a "conservative" viewpoint. And usually, the conservative is living in La La land, in total denial, and lies are the truth. It's maddening to see it. So tonight I watched again and they had two former Justice Department officials on, I believe the woman was from Clinton's administration and the man was definitely from Reagan's.

The Reagan Justice Dept. guy was visibly angry when he made his arguments, that basically the Justice Dept. is just fine, it's the press and "partisanship" that are giving it all a bad name. DENIAL! His anger and defensiveness was clearly registering over the TV waves. I was actually thinking it was HIS partisanship that was making him defensiveness (criticisms of others are always about us--believe me, I'm angry and defensive a lot!). On the other hand, the Clinton (I think, possibly Carter) Justice Dept. veteran was cool and collected when she made her arguments. She spoke second. She absolutely disagreed with the Reagan guy but didn't get mad or seem upset. She made her arguments with authority and without passion. She was right--the problems in the Justice Department are real and she gave evidence of it. She had to say the obvious and the opposite of angry man to make her point! This is why the PBS news and other media news have become a farce--who takes anyone seriously when two people are saying the exact opposite of each other? It's ridiculous.

My point is, should we be won over by angry guy because he showed more emotion and passion in his arguments? Should we be even trying to appeal to voters who use emotional appeals to make their decisions? That's a ridiculous way to run a government!!

Hillary is probably the coolest candidate out there. She's seems to have her emotions well under control, and she uses humor, but she's also arguing for the status quo--so where is the passion in that? Edwards is angry and passionate about many issues that I'm angry and passionate about, and I think he's pretty enlightened about what's important in life. So is that our ideal candidate? Is he faking his passionate appeal? Maybe. Does that make him an enlightened guy who's faking emotion? Does an enlightened guy lie to show feelings...or does he go back to normal humanness and learn to exploit them instead of letting them pass through him without reaction (like I'm learning to do)?

Does Obama learn to exploit his spiritually controlled emotions for base, human appeal? I don't think he'd do it.

Looking at these three candidates, Edwards and Obama seem the most authentic. But Hillary acts like the most enlightened. Hmmm. Therefore, I think I'm in favor of voting on folks based on their ideas and values rather than their emotional and spiritual aspects. As much as we need enlightenment in this country, we could use a healthy dose of critical thinking in the interim.

Peace.

Humor and Politics

I went to blog about an article I read about Obama and found that Gonzales is resigning--finally. But it's not as if the damage hasn't been already been done some of which has actually been vindicated by Congress. So it's the right thing and substantially meaningless at the same time. It's not like Bush fired him. I'm curious to see how everybody spins it, though.

And here is another situation where we could use some humor from our candidates! I was reading GQ's profile of Obama and it was fairly complimentary and honest at the same time. I was thinking that the Democratic candidates I favor could use a big dose of humor when dealing with controversy and attacks!! For instance, Obama gets VERY serious when he is attacked which actually makes him seem "thin-skinned" according to many critics. I never appreciated Ronald Reagan or thought he was a particularly good communicator, he WAS an EMOTIONAL communicator, and that came through very well when he used humor to deflect attacks. It made Reagan seem untouchable, above it all, happy and confident in himself.

Please, Obama, Edwards, lighten up.

A warning about Sears on-line

After two days and a handful of mostly unfriendly and even possibly fraudulent* customer service reps, we have finally resolved our air conditioning order (we are in the process of canceling it) with a promise that we won't be charged anything for canceling our order. We ordered two air conditioners on Sat with a phone rep from Sears online. He did not inform us that our air conditioners would be sent to us via UPS (the previous week we had a dishwasher home delivered) which we would never have assumed since we were paying for someone to actually install one of the air conditioners. We had every reason to believe we were receiving Home Delivery. But alas, we were getting UPS shipment which is instantly processed and cannot be canceled! The customer can refuse shipment, and then incurs shipment charges! When we called Sunday to cancel our order that HAD NOT SHIPPED yet they would not cancel shipment or our order. Finally, we have been told we will have our shipping charges refunded (we have to REFUSE SHIPMENT!)...but this, we are told, is an exception to the rule!

Be warned!

*Yesterday we had one customer service rep tell us our order had a 95% chance of being canceled; yet our order was shipped first thing this morning.

Update: It's Sept. 11 and we have yet to be refunded by Sears. We had to tell UPS to return the items at our doorstep. Sears keeps saying we'll be refunded in a few days, then there's a new reason it's ANOTHER few days, etc. My husband wrote to the CEO yesterday and we're wondering how many letters he gets.

Congress 2007

My husband and I are in shock and mourning for the failure of this Congress, that we helped financially elect, on this critical issue (FISA and the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"). If Democrats don't soon gain a spine and a rational negotiation policy with the most criminal administration this country has ever seen (since you need help ask my husband, he negotiates for a nice living) we will no longer feel safe in this country. You guys don't understand the power you have in your hands against this President. If not you, who?

A message sent to Sen. Reid and Leader Pelosi via the ACLU.

The Cancer In Front of Our Faces

Last week my son's babysitter was telling me how painful and intrusive her breast cancer detection surgery was. She still doesn't know if she has breast cancer or not, but she's scared and has two staples in the breast that didn't have pain in it.

She asked me if I thought organic foods would "save" us from cancer, because she knew that a friend of hers was not saved this way. "My friend doesn't smoke, or drink, and she eats organic foods, she got cancer." I said that I eat organic foods and use air filters to help, but I know I could still get sick because of the dirty air, the furniture, the chemicals in everything, but if I do get sick at least I'll have an easier time adopting a REALLY healthy lifestyle.

Low and behold, the L.A. Times had an op-ed that discusses the cancer causing chemicals that "Virtually every Californian tested has shown levels of these chemicals in his or her body. They migrate from the furniture into dust particles and find their way into children, pets and the breast milk of nursing mothers."

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is sponsoring a bill, AB 706, that bans all chlorinated and brominated fire retardants from use in furniture...The bill also would require the toxicity of chemicals used to meet fire safety standards.

LET'S HELP LENO!! ASAP! Assemblyman Mark Leno

Fire retardants in furniture were required 32 years ago to protect smoker's from falling asleep and burning their beds and couches. Too bad so sad; that's the unhealthy tail wagging the healthy dog. We don't harm all the babies to save the few dunces. Of course, my husband did point out that dunces can endanger entire apartment buildings, so that is something to ponder.

Edwards

It's two worlds: The People & Corporations

When I hear people, they are listening to Edwards and like what he's fighting for.

When I see magazines, TV, and newspapers, they pick at Edwards for the DARNDEST things and don't listen to what he's fighting for. And it's opposite world, as in Newsweek's latest, "He's no RFK." Okay, so WHO comes closer? It's time for JRE.

My Edwards '08 bumper sticker is going on my car as soon as I can find it.

What really matters?

Great debate highlights, too. This guy rocks!

Sicko scares right to the top

Crooks and Liars points out the new "scare" words are "Federalized healthcare." As if the government is going to be administering our shots--that is not what a single-payer system is. Medicare is a single-payer system and it is something like 30 times more efficient than HMOs. HMOs claim that they are more effcient by hiring non-union, non-living wage paid employees, and then they blow that (in my mind) socially unethical "efficiency" by paying their CEOs millions of dollars. Great plan! The rich get rich, the laborers get screwed, and we get kicked off the insurance rolls!! THAT'S private insurance. No thanks...I want a single-payer system before I turn 40, and that's not long.

So here is our monkey-in-chief doing the bidding of the insurance industries and acting as if medical innovation is tied to greed (how would he know that, he's greedy and hasn't innovated anything useful). Even if it is to some extent, I think we can stand to leave true medical innovation to the altruistic innovators, expand the number of government scientists and the academics, reward the great ones! I just suspect they'll have more drive and focus on the issues that really hurt us, not just the ones that turn a profit.

Peace.

Save the earth, throw the bums out!

Last night I found a list of the worst, just oil and gas, offenders:

Top 20 oil and gas friends in Congress

Here is a list of ALL senators, Democrats included:

Oil and Gas Senators Check out Feinstein, ugh, but Hillary about doubles Feinstein's grab.

I'm going to add Open Secrets as a link on my blog.

Excellent opportunity to help impeach Cheney and Bush

I've ranted about this on other blogs but not my own, as far as I can tell. This is what I wrote:

I urge the Congress of the United States to begin impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney and President George W. Bush. The crimes of this administration have made this action imperative in order to protect the Constitution of the United States. There is no greater priority for this Congress, no greater duty, than to defend our Constitution. Congress must also demand that we exit Iraq as soon as possible.

The media's moral equivalency

How in the world does someone who stands up to a bully get insulted by witnesses? When it's a progressive who stands up to the bully.

Ann Coulter has insulted the Edwards' family to such a degree it's impossible to ignore it; she has accussed them of using their own son's death because they have been inspired to public service because of it; she has misrepresented John's sexual preference; she has wished for John's death by terrorists.

Elizabeth politely and publically asked her to stop the personal attacks on her family.

And now the media is saying the Edwards' are just as "bad" as Coulter, since they got to raise some funds for their PUBLIC SERVICE campaign because of the confrontation (which COULTER started years ago and refreshed her attacks very recently).

When you are insulted, you have two moral choices; and it is a catch 22 (As pointed out to me by the book Moral Politics). You either respond and inflict harm yourself, or you don't. If you inflict harm, that isn't a good thing, but at least you've tried to "even the score," and have sought retribution. Conservatives normally give people credit for this; e.g. the death penalty and spanking. However, if you turn the other cheek, and don't seek retribution, you're on Jesus' side and are living in moral purity, which liberals very often advocate; but you have failed to "even the score" morally speaking.

So, as you can see, the Edwards' are in a Catch 22. Either they take Coulter's crap, and turn the other cheek, or they fight back. In either choice they will get criticized. It should be that conservatives are cheering them for fighting back! But alas! The conservatives are criticizing them for not turning the other cheek!! Hmmm, their system of retribution is only for conservatives who are harmed! Liberals remain silent on the issue, or equally condemn it, because we do believe in turning the other cheek (to some extent); and generally frown on "profiting" from bad situations.

This liberal is very glad that someone is taking on Ann Coulter, and a pox on the houses of the press (not the people; that's mean) that give her air time. I'm glad that the candidate I support can actually benefit somehow from Ann Coulter's and the press' nasty alliance. I know in my heart that the campaign would rather not have that as it's fundraising catalyst--welcome to Real Politics. The light has to shine on the dark.

Peace.

You can support Campaign Finance Reform!

This is my friend! He's a very honest, loyal guy!

Dear Sen. Boxer,

I implore that you and Congress hold our President accountable for the crimes that he has committed against our people, our military, and in Iraq. I believe it is Congress' number one priority and duty to impeach him and the Vice President; I'm sorry that you didn't pick this as a priority, but our President's behavior has demanded it. I don't know what we'll tell our children if you choose to look the other way and let his aggressive moves toward dictatorship continue.

Where I am today, Thank you Annie Lennox

“Usually I’m on stage as a performer, but today I’m not going to sing, I’m going to talk, which is something I don’t usually do very much in public.

We live in complicated times. Our lives are too often overloaded with information that usually has the effect of adding to our inner stress and turmoil. We seek, but we don't necessarily find the ultimate things we long to experience ... contentment, joy, love, inner peace. The World tells us that we should be successful, rich, beautiful, famous.

In a consumer society the power of media and advertising constantly bombards us with messages and images reminding us of our “lack” and we so often feel like failures.

Life’s condition means that at any given moment the things we value most can be swiftly taken away from us at any point in time. Our health, our safety and security, both emotionally and physically are not always lasting. The comfortable status quo cannot necessarily be maintained or guaranteed...

So we carry our anxiety and fear of loss within and around us unwittingly.

We strive for a “better moment” than the one we are currently in, while dragging the burdens of our past into every present situation, so that we are rarely, if ever, “here and now”.

How do we find meaning, value and connection in a society that is dislocated and in many ways dysfunctional? We have lost our sense of community, or belonging to anything much beyond our own individual circumstance. We have become voyeurs, vacuously gazing at reality TV shows and sitcoms while exhibitionists and ever new ‘celebrities’ grab their pot shot at 15 minutes of fame. We vicariously become engrossed with the prurient details of other people’s lives, as we compare and contrast them to our own.

We digest the endless details of mankind's abuse and exploration, while our polluted planet heats up around us. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the world is completely and utterly mad. And perhaps I am mad to have an expectation that it could be anything otherwise. But somehow I still cling to the notion that there is still come kind of intelligence, sanity, goodness, compassion, or hope somewhere on this planet.

I know there are many people who feel the same way as I do. They are everywhere ...

Positive change is happening, and we should be encouraged by this. I applaud all ...who refuse to give into pessimism in the face of what often seems like a lost cause ...

I’m proud to be here with you. To stand up and be counted as one of the lunatic idealists ... who passionately endorse the notion of the better, safer, kinder world."

2006 Speech during Resurgence Magazine's 40th Anniversary ceremonies

Edwards' substance on social issues ignored on Meet the Press

Despite what I believed to be Edwards' resouding victory in Thursday night's debate at Howard, Tavis Smiley chose to promote the findings of a group of 30 people polled after the debate. They believed that Hillary won the debate (apparently with one or two seemingly scripted and Bill-inspired quotes that got resounding applause, but with little substance or details). The panel devoted their "Democrats" time to Obama and Hillary and ignored every other Democratic presidential candidate completely. It was apparent that the Christian Broadcasting Network guy was rooting for Hillary because he wants Republicans to beat her in the general election--but Tim never pointed that out for us.

When the "discussion" on Meet the Press turned to the Republicans it was Giuliani-TV (not surprising considering this has been Tim's favorite person for a long time). I'll never forget Russert giving Giuliani at least half the show right before the 2004 election to pump up George Bush and destroy Kerry over the "war on terrorism." Yet, Russert actually showed projected results in the Iowa primary for REPUBLICANS, yet he didn't do that with Democrats. Why? This knocked Giuliani down to third or fourth place, giving the panel a chance to discuss Mitt Romney for 3.5 seconds or less.

I would like to point out two important DEMOCRATIC polls for your notice, since they are apparently escaping the gaze of the press right now:

Edwards leads in Iowa

Edwards beats Giuliani and Romney in the general election (He's actually tied with Guiliani now )-:)

"Twenty-eight percent (28%) say they will definitely vote for Edwards if he is on the ballot in 2008. Thirty-two percent (32%) will definitely vote against him. That net deficit of four points (28% for minus 32% against) is the best for any candidate seeking the White House at this time. Thompson and Giuliani rank second and third by that measure."

Does this make a male child possible from female bone marrow?! Cheney's grandchild?!

I knew that this could be possible years ago.

Gentlewoman Elizabeth Edwards takes on the GOP's Poster Child

Wow, you may have heard that that Coulter (I swore I'd never mention her by name again--but now I have new reasons) waits for her wish for John Edwards to be killed in a terrorist attack. She made her wish for the killing of a Presidential candidate known on GOOD MORNING AMERICA yesterday which is stunning in itself, and then denied that she'd said anything about Edwards the following day on Hard Ball.

I intend to lambast any network that gives this hate-monger a platform. She is useless except for hateful controversy and Democratic fundraising. I do think that the left can no longer ignore her and just raise money off of her; we have to attack the press who give her a platform. Elizabeth Edwards stopped short of taking Christ Matthews to task, she shouldn't have.

Peace.

Edwards Campaign Addresses the PAC attack

"What happens when the candidate who will shake up Washington the most also has the best chance of getting elected?

Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.

We are fighting back hard but we need your help. If we hit our second quarter goal of $9 million in the next 6 days we can break through to voters with our real message of change. It's up to all of us to do our part. I just gave $100—can you please give whatever you can afford today?

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell [I linked the title to the fundraising if you're interested; I strongly advocate Campaign Finance Reform, but until then...]

The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.

It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.

Enough is enough. Together, we can put substance above cynicism and beat back these desperate attacks.
Your contribution, combined with donations from hundreds of thousands of others, has tremendous power. All our small change can add up to big change for America and the world. So please give what you can today:

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell

Like many of you, I've been with John since 2004. The same folks who are attacking him now went after him then. You know why? Because the Bush inner circle sensed what the polls tell us today—that John Edwards is the best general election candidate we've got. Last time they attacked his hair; this time it's his haircut. But it's the same sad game. And this time, we can beat it.

For all the reasons we got into this—to bring our troops back from Iraq, to solve global warming, to guarantee universal health care and to eliminate poverty—and because we believe the politics of substance and purpose must trump cynicism and personal destruction—this is a fight we must win. And together, we can.

Please give whatever you can afford to help us hit our $9 million goal by June 30th:

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/ring-the-bell

Sincerely,
--Jonathan Prince
  Deputy Campaign Manager
  John Edwards for President
  Monday, June 25, 2007

P.S. Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited—like any of the 200 young people who got scholarships through the College for Everyone program, or the 700 students who went to New Orleans with John to help rebuild. So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today"

Thou Protest Too Much

Anti-Catholic rhetoric is inexcusable; but making a joke about a behavior by some that is factual is not a biggoted comment. That this guy (on the right) defends all Priests from attack but excuses Imus, who targeted named people with racist insults, reveals a lot. I'm pretty sure no one comes out smelling pretty when comedians take a look at us honestly. Get used to it, right winger.

Bloomberg loses the GOP

I think the implications of this are deeper than anyone realizes. I think this may be a look at our future--a growing and meaningful independent movement. It would be nice if such an independent movement radically shifted our government to a group of secularly governing, practical, technology-oriented individuals that are not funded by American corporate bigwigs and the Military Industrial Complex. In other words, hundreds of independents throw the bums out and start our Congress and Presidency over with just our Constitution to prop them up--a brand new day.

Lack of trust

I was about to send a Congressperson a query to find out way they voted to continue our occupation in Iraq. But I was so honest about what I think is really going on in this country that I became worried that people in our government might actually try to silence me somehow--so I didn't send it. That makes me sad.

Congratulations on your win to the Senate. I met you in California and was very impressed by you. However, I am perplexed as to why you voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation. Your explanation makes no rational sense to me. Did you believe that the military will solve this problem? It was my understanding that you saw Iraq as needing only a diplomatic solution, and that Bush hasn't, won't and seemingly, can't succeed at that (and maybe it's too late). That's why our only choice is to LEAVE and save our soldiers from the futile situation we've place them in on our behalf. At this time, I feel like I helped elect men who are only interested in supporting the Military Industrial situation that I believe needs to be radically overhauled, and not our No. 1 industry.

It's like he argues like a progressive, then acts like a Republican. He makes the case to oppose funding, then says, "That is why I'm voting for this." Opposite world.

We worked fairly hard to help get this PA guy elected; he makes a more convincing case for voting for funding, but expects us to place a whole lot of trust in a jr. Congressman's ability to withdraw the troops (albeit if anyone can pull it off, this guy can):

http://sestak.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/pa07_sestak/Background_iraq.shtml

Why don't you want bin Laden, Rudi???

Corruption attracts buyers

Before this day I had no idea what Fred Thompson was like as a candidate, now I do. He's hired a guy, Tim Griffin, that was just fired (resigned?) because he was heavily involved in the attorney firing scandal--before that Griffin was suppressing African American MILITARY votes in Florida in a process called "caging."

Now I know your number, Fred Thompson.

Wow, the old McCain!

For a brief episode, the old John McCain rose to the occasion and gave an impassioned speech fighting the Republican machine of anti-Hispanic rhetoric. I can't find the transcript though.

The Republicans

Again, it's the outliers that are telling any truth, with their religious fantasies (this should be enormously irrelevant to governing) and anti-immigrant racism not counting. Huckaby, Trancredo and Paul the self-entitled "Champion of the Constitution."

Most stunning to me was how they CLEARLY put political/social "values" above our NATIONAL SECURITY interests. When not one single Republican supported changing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that has resulted in firing ARABIC translators, it became clear how shallow these guys are (Paul left some room for this possibility). It makes me go back to the radical idea that they really know that there is no real terror threat at all--otherwise, this is a totally IRRATIONAL position for them to take (and of course, they are not above irrationality). We need those gay Arabic interpreters and every other gay soldier in our military--how do they explain away the open English troops and other allies? They were never asked to.

So McCain believes that God created us whole and we did not evolve from apes--fascinating. It was infuriating when he told the sister of a dead soldier that this war has had a lot of mistakes, but we must continue it to keep her brother's death from being in vain. I want to call him something really nasty here but I'm working on my language/anger. Let me just say, he's one of those mistakes.

Brownback has everything to do with the mess we're in with Iraq....he's been in office the whole time ignoring the problems and being a cheerleader for Bush.

Guiliani is about to lose it. He is so deeply in fear and denial that he's resorted to telling the realists that they are in denial. He's living in opposite world, "Iraq is central to the War on Terror." Okay, so can we get a couple of Iranian and military and nuclear experts to tell us exactly how long we have before Iran develops nuclear warheads? Let's not rely on the gut check, okay, Mr. Nation Builder? He thinks our problems in Iraq are because our military's not equipped to be nation building...he'll fix that. I'm still stunned that he's supporting women to get safe abortions if they happen to live in a state where it will remain legal. Will he win a primary or is it just that all the machines are rigged nowadays? It looked like an anti-abortion protestor was rigging the buzzer when he was asked about this issue, Wolf said it was, "lightning!"

I don't think the other guys are getting anywhere, maybe Thompson, but only because of his name. And he keeps calling himself the best conservative.

Thinking about the debates

I hate to do this because it's such a Republican's dream, but it seems that the weak spots of our candidates, as well as the strengths, showed up the other night. I guess we're the only party that understands that EVERYONE is good and bad.

Hillary:

Rhetorical wizard, has an answer and a spin for everything. Still, she seems to be living in a high-end region of the State of Denial. It's happy there.

Obama:

Beautiful, stunning speaker. I would say earnest but he seemed so bent on having the "right" answer, an often limiting trait I recognize in myself and he compounded it by that follow-up with a memo about how we are less safe, and I worry about his sure-fire nature. I agreed when he said we should see bin Laden as a war target...but then I changed my mind when I actually considered what Kucinich had said. How much better if we did arrest the terrorist and give him the justice our enemies don't give themselves or us: let him sit and rot in jail accused and prosecuted for the murders he has committed; denying our enemies their marytr and he matyrdom.

That would not only be LOGICAL, it would be peace and justice, and a clear step away from the violent policies of war and assassination that our enemies so dearly embrace. Why are we so quick to use war? I would expect more thoughtfulness from Obama on this issue, not just "get him!"

Edwards:

Earnest and on target with the questions and policies, except when he went out to lunch on his "The World in 80 days" during the last question. Doh! Of course we need mandatory healthcare (what's Obama thinking?) and yes, I think 200K is rich enough.

Richardson:

Thoughtful and experienced. I think he did great in this debate except for the Beijing Olympics comment...too Carterish, ouch!! But he's principled and honest! Yes! We should care about Africa! Been there, done that, changed the world, vote for me.

Kucinich:

Right on! He's amazing. Every idea he has could save the world! He's up and ready! He's the most optimistic guy I know! I don't have one negative thing to say. It drives me crazy that the press just eliminates his candidacy. He's got serious fans!

Dodd:

More fun to watch than I ever dreamed. He is classic liberalism defined. What is it about him that keeps him down? His hair? That sense of northeastern intellect? Been there, done that, but don't have much recognition for anything?


My favorites now:

Edwards
Kucinich/Richardson(it's VERY interesting that he's running against Hillary)
Obama

Tonight we wait for the fear-mongering. Do you think we'll flesh out the anti-evolution ideas? Not!

Which comes first, terror or the terrorist?

Is there one shred of evidence that there were conversations with any other terrorist or is this all according to the criminal, federal "informant?"

Well, according to this article and the "informant" there was video evidence of JFK targets, but it looks to me like this was turned over to a "new contact" in Trinidad right before the feds busted the crazy bearded Brooklyn guy in NEW YORK.

So do we have evidence of the plans or not?

Give me a break.

Update: Perhaps they DO have the videos--I found some International News: BBC

Don't believe your own eyes

Everyone is talking about the JFK "plot" as if it is real. Hillary says something baffling, "Clinton said, 'I take all of these plots seriously, unless proven otherwise. There's no reason to be second-guessing.'"

WHAT? NO REASON?? How about an administration BENT on manipulating every shred of "evidence" so that it fits their agenda, on their time schedule?!

I noticed this:

"When the JFK plot was first discovered in January 2006, the NYPD's counterterrorism division ran a mile-by-mile survey of the pipeline. The NYPD also increased surveillance using helicopters and harbor boats."

2006

2006??? Then why did this story hit right before a Democratic debate and just happen to be the primary issue that that WOLFIE wanted answered?

The only "evidence" I've yet to read about in the Press or hear on TV is the following:

"He [the terror suspect] can be heard on the tapes [produced by a federal informant, described below] speaking of his hate and murderous urges during the time he worked as a cargo handler at Kennedy Airport.

"These things used to come into my brain - well, I could blow this place up," he was recorded saying. "I would sit and see a plane taxiing up the runway. And I would say, if I could get a rocket, then I could do a hit."

He apparently came in contact with people from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago who harbored that same murderous hate for America. He is alleged to have already been hatching a plot when he encountered a man who had been working as a government informant since 2004 in an effort to get a reduced sentence on a pair of drug trafficking cases [and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY].

The informant worked his way into the midst of the conspirators and reported that they intended to explode a fuel line that runs 40 miles from New Jersey through Staten Island and Brooklyn to JFK Airport. Defreitas is quoted in the criminal complaint as saying the plot would destroy "the whole of Kennedy" along with nearly everyone there and part of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Alleged plot

Emphasis added.

I watched the Today show this morning, NBC's answer to Fox News, and they had the "expert" Steve Emmerson on the show spouting on about how much some Muslims hate us. He had far more to say about hate than any facts about this case...he said something about tapes and VIDEO showing compelling evidence that this was a real threat (I have yet to find any other account of video evidence against the defendent). His supporters have private interests, not educational ones.

I know I shouldn't be but I am STUNNED that the press has yet to grow any SKEPTICISM after the wake of Iraq and the Bill Moyer's special.

The crazy bearded guy in a Brooklyn court room has not been found guilty yet, and nearly everybody's accepting that his plot had legs. Let's start asking more questions and not accepting non-academic and independent researchers as experts on anything. We might as well ask historical novelists for help and guidance in this war.

I've got a question for Hillary, "Why are you drinking the diet pepsi?"

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.

Peace.

"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

Weird

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.

Memorial Day

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

Here is the House:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

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.

Peace.

THEY WON'T FOLLOW US HOME!!!

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.

This time, we can't let the President and the Republicans LIE AND CHEAT AND GET AWAY WITH THEIR PROPAGANDA! THE PRESS NEEDS TO HEAR US, OUR REPS NEED TO HEAR US!

THE CONGRESS MUST PASS A BILL DEMANDING THAT WITHDRAWAL BEGINS ASAP!!!!!

C-Span

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.

Period.

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:

TODAY'S WSJ LEGERDEMAIN:

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.

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.
Peace.

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.

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.

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?"

Peace.

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.

"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**.

Peace.

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"...it'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.

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.