I think it's so illuminating that our President can't say anything without throwing stones at the Democrats. He's says, "Yeah, we're bad, but they [who are not in charge of anything right now] are worse."
1.) That's not true, the Clinton years were good for nearly everybody except Rwandans and Serbs. And who was the last Democrat to lose or quit a war?
2.) Clean up your own house before taking inventory of your opponent, Mister.
3.) He's basically admitting that he's out of ideas. Blame becomes handy there.
Katrina's anniversary will be very interesting...
Peace,
Karen
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Maddening debate
I just listened to the second half of a debate between two of L.A.'s leading Jewish and Muslim leaders. Exhausting and circular arguments--and I frankly think that the Muslim came out ahead simply because he kept advocating peace.
I've been on both sides of the Lebanon debate, and now I just don't know enough about it to make a decision. I can say that I hope that there are not thousands of civilian casualties (probably not realistic) and that Israel is effectively taking out Hezbollah. It was a mistake of Lebanon to allow it's borders to become a breeding ground for missiles.
I do know that unless some principled leaders step up in the middle east; leaders that are willing to make sacrifices (why did we force Palestine to have an election when Abas was a good leader?) we're never going to stop warring there.
Lebanon is actually the least of the issues that remain there.
I've been on both sides of the Lebanon debate, and now I just don't know enough about it to make a decision. I can say that I hope that there are not thousands of civilian casualties (probably not realistic) and that Israel is effectively taking out Hezbollah. It was a mistake of Lebanon to allow it's borders to become a breeding ground for missiles.
I do know that unless some principled leaders step up in the middle east; leaders that are willing to make sacrifices (why did we force Palestine to have an election when Abas was a good leader?) we're never going to stop warring there.
Lebanon is actually the least of the issues that remain there.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Out of touch in the Senate, 1 vote away from a police state
I'm analyzing why I have such a violent reaction to the B.S. that happened in the Senate today, and why folks like Sen. Diane Feinstein decided to vote FOR an amendment that will criminalize flag "desecration." If you'd like to know how subjective a term "desecrate" is, feel free to follow the link above.
Anyway, I'm sure my anger toward those who would criminalize causing damage to a SYMBOL has something to do with me being an artist, and that I've used a flag in my artwork. To me, it was not anywhere near desecration, but where's the line? I physically cut out parts of the flag, who's the judge? When does wearing the flag become desecration? When it's on a disfavored body part or person? What if a child drops the flag on the ground, is that desecration? I thought artists are supposed to be the ones that are grossly subjective and emotional, not politicians.
But where is there room for art in a culture that places the value of symbols over people? People have ideas, symbols don't, people live, symbols live inside our minds and, supposedly, can't be harmed by other's aggressions. To suggest that someone can harm our symbols by physically mangling it makes us appear weak, as my brilliant husband observed. For me, to arrest someone for burning our flag makes us look scared of ourselves--not to mention that we're trampling on freedom of expression (formerly one of our most patriotic principles). It may be true that we're scared of each other, but let's work on that instead of criminalizing our own fear in the constitution. We were one vote away from that, and, although I see it as a near miss, that is exactly what the Republicans will run on in the fall.
Let's criminalize our fear and suspicions! Down with personal autonomy and personal expression! Vote republican and you can eat your cake in a police state where no one knows exactly what "desecration" means (big brother likes it that way).
G_d help us.
Peace.
Update: Letter to Senator Feinstein (an edit of last summer's letter to Rep. Harman)...
Dear Sen. Feinstein,
I am very disappointed to learn that you voted to restrict Americans' freedom of expression by supporting a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to define flag desecration (what a job!). This vote on free speech actually strikes at the true power of the American flag. If you vote to "protect" it, it will actually loose it's ability to symbolize freedom for all. It becomes a federal stamp rather than a powerful symbol that weathers the full spectrum of the American people and our passions.
I wonder, what does freedom mean to you? I believe that the principle of freedom means that American symbols can be both respected, venerated and denigrated by Americans. This is one very important reason why America is unique and great. This actual freedom shows, or maybe showed, that we are fundamentally free. But today in America, peace means war, freedom means civil rights restrictions, and we are every day losing a sense of reality and truth and living in an Orwellian fantasy based not on principles of freedom and liberty, but of the political power of special interests and politically generous corporations. To me, a vote for restrictions on freedom of expression (e.g. flag "desecration," and also academic tinkering) is a serious erosion, and actual desecration, of the principles of freedom and liberty for all, and a vote for personal political power at the expense of these principles.
Symbols are not principles. Why should we protect symbols over our principles? That is a fundamental error in American democracy. And as powerful as symbols are, they are not life. They serve as forms of communication, as metaphors, and therefore they are very clearly SPEECH (as the courts clearly recognize). Because they are like speech, their meaning depends completely on context, history, and interpretation.
I am an artist. Does this mean that my art involving the flag that I produced while I was living in New York, in reaction to 9-11, is a desecration of our national symbol [it is a flag with the word "comfort" literally cut out of it]? Who will make these interpretive decisions? What are the full consequences of this restriction on speech for which you are about to vote, and who will it most affect? Why would you give Congress such a controlling power?
To me, individuals' fears of the flag being desecrated put America in a position of weakness, as if we are not strong enough to endure self-criticism (yet we will continue to be criticized by those in other nations). That's tough to support, and I would like to believe that our nation will always be strong enough to endure self-criticism. In spite of your optimistic justification for this vote, you can be certain that an amendment to protect the flag will in fact limit Americans' rights to express their views of America through her symbols--and that's exactly why certain people are gunning for it. In the end, no law can really stop flag desecration (or abortion, for that matter). If someone desecrated your personal flag, or any other person's flag (monument), I'm certain our property laws would be sufficient to arrest those individuals.
I understand that many veterans venerate every image of the flag and think it should never be used as a symbol of dissent or protest. Their personal and emotional relationship to this symbol is something I can sympathize with because I also venerate our flag, and wish it to be a symbol of peace. However, ANY personally emotional or nationalistic reason for stifling the American tradition of freedom of speech is dangerous and not justified by our history of expanding liberties (this tradition is already being seriously undermined by the Bush administration and our Republican congress).
Please reconsider your position and keep the Old Glory a venerated symbol of the people, for the people. Veneration and patriotism is more meaningful when it is freely chosen.
Thank you
Anyway, I'm sure my anger toward those who would criminalize causing damage to a SYMBOL has something to do with me being an artist, and that I've used a flag in my artwork. To me, it was not anywhere near desecration, but where's the line? I physically cut out parts of the flag, who's the judge? When does wearing the flag become desecration? When it's on a disfavored body part or person? What if a child drops the flag on the ground, is that desecration? I thought artists are supposed to be the ones that are grossly subjective and emotional, not politicians.
But where is there room for art in a culture that places the value of symbols over people? People have ideas, symbols don't, people live, symbols live inside our minds and, supposedly, can't be harmed by other's aggressions. To suggest that someone can harm our symbols by physically mangling it makes us appear weak, as my brilliant husband observed. For me, to arrest someone for burning our flag makes us look scared of ourselves--not to mention that we're trampling on freedom of expression (formerly one of our most patriotic principles). It may be true that we're scared of each other, but let's work on that instead of criminalizing our own fear in the constitution. We were one vote away from that, and, although I see it as a near miss, that is exactly what the Republicans will run on in the fall.
Let's criminalize our fear and suspicions! Down with personal autonomy and personal expression! Vote republican and you can eat your cake in a police state where no one knows exactly what "desecration" means (big brother likes it that way).
G_d help us.
Peace.
Update: Letter to Senator Feinstein (an edit of last summer's letter to Rep. Harman)...
Dear Sen. Feinstein,
I am very disappointed to learn that you voted to restrict Americans' freedom of expression by supporting a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to define flag desecration (what a job!). This vote on free speech actually strikes at the true power of the American flag. If you vote to "protect" it, it will actually loose it's ability to symbolize freedom for all. It becomes a federal stamp rather than a powerful symbol that weathers the full spectrum of the American people and our passions.
I wonder, what does freedom mean to you? I believe that the principle of freedom means that American symbols can be both respected, venerated and denigrated by Americans. This is one very important reason why America is unique and great. This actual freedom shows, or maybe showed, that we are fundamentally free. But today in America, peace means war, freedom means civil rights restrictions, and we are every day losing a sense of reality and truth and living in an Orwellian fantasy based not on principles of freedom and liberty, but of the political power of special interests and politically generous corporations. To me, a vote for restrictions on freedom of expression (e.g. flag "desecration," and also academic tinkering) is a serious erosion, and actual desecration, of the principles of freedom and liberty for all, and a vote for personal political power at the expense of these principles.
Symbols are not principles. Why should we protect symbols over our principles? That is a fundamental error in American democracy. And as powerful as symbols are, they are not life. They serve as forms of communication, as metaphors, and therefore they are very clearly SPEECH (as the courts clearly recognize). Because they are like speech, their meaning depends completely on context, history, and interpretation.
I am an artist. Does this mean that my art involving the flag that I produced while I was living in New York, in reaction to 9-11, is a desecration of our national symbol [it is a flag with the word "comfort" literally cut out of it]? Who will make these interpretive decisions? What are the full consequences of this restriction on speech for which you are about to vote, and who will it most affect? Why would you give Congress such a controlling power?
To me, individuals' fears of the flag being desecrated put America in a position of weakness, as if we are not strong enough to endure self-criticism (yet we will continue to be criticized by those in other nations). That's tough to support, and I would like to believe that our nation will always be strong enough to endure self-criticism. In spite of your optimistic justification for this vote, you can be certain that an amendment to protect the flag will in fact limit Americans' rights to express their views of America through her symbols--and that's exactly why certain people are gunning for it. In the end, no law can really stop flag desecration (or abortion, for that matter). If someone desecrated your personal flag, or any other person's flag (monument), I'm certain our property laws would be sufficient to arrest those individuals.
I understand that many veterans venerate every image of the flag and think it should never be used as a symbol of dissent or protest. Their personal and emotional relationship to this symbol is something I can sympathize with because I also venerate our flag, and wish it to be a symbol of peace. However, ANY personally emotional or nationalistic reason for stifling the American tradition of freedom of speech is dangerous and not justified by our history of expanding liberties (this tradition is already being seriously undermined by the Bush administration and our Republican congress).
Please reconsider your position and keep the Old Glory a venerated symbol of the people, for the people. Veneration and patriotism is more meaningful when it is freely chosen.
Thank you
Thursday, June 15, 2006
G_d is the Word, the Word is G_d
I have no intention of reading the blonde conservative's new book, and she does not deserve my rage, but lest she think that there is no outrage over her accusation that liberals are godless, let me voice mine.
I saw her speak on the Tonight Show after Jay Leno questioned the language that she uses to make her points. He characterized it as nasty. She denied that it's nasty (see the link below and form your own opinion about her word choices).
"The wisdom of Ann Coulter"
I'm only human, and am not anywhere near perfect, but I have been trying to make my words "impeccable" lately which means "without sin." It is the First Agreement of the four agreements, a theory that I believe would make this world a much better place. I'm liberal. I guess you could call this political correctness, you could also call it trying to make myself into a woman who feels G_d's presence through my words. It involves showing respect for others as well as myself.
So I'm not enraged that Ann Coulter is labeling me as godless because I'm a liberal, that is simply wrong, I'm enraged because I don't recall hearing her say one true or godly thing tonight. In other words, she's a pot calling the kettle black (when the kettle is actually a brown).
She characterized liberals as an intolerant religion--that we all follow the same mantras and infuse our children, government and schools with our radical agenda. Ha! If that were true we'd be so powerful! The truth is, we have lots of competing ideas. If we are unified as liberals at all, it is possibly the principle that knowledge is good, that learning is good, that honest debate is good, and that science is generally good (and valid). We are tolerant, but are wary of the intolerant. This can lead to intolerance of the intolerant, naturally, but liberal principles include tolerance. She is telling us we're generally intolerant and weak at the same time she's saying we're so powerful. Illogical.
So I wonder which conservative first hired her to go around saying that liberal men are wimpy. That seems to be her whole M.O. Watch out for the godless, wimpy liberal threat!
Huh? That's hardly something to make us shudder--oh wait, that straw man is so that we don't ELECT liberals. It's much better to elect uninformed "strong" conservatives who can't handle wars, national disasters, money or scientific truths. Yeah, that's better for America.
I saw her speak on the Tonight Show after Jay Leno questioned the language that she uses to make her points. He characterized it as nasty. She denied that it's nasty (see the link below and form your own opinion about her word choices).
"The wisdom of Ann Coulter"
I'm only human, and am not anywhere near perfect, but I have been trying to make my words "impeccable" lately which means "without sin." It is the First Agreement of the four agreements, a theory that I believe would make this world a much better place. I'm liberal. I guess you could call this political correctness, you could also call it trying to make myself into a woman who feels G_d's presence through my words. It involves showing respect for others as well as myself.
So I'm not enraged that Ann Coulter is labeling me as godless because I'm a liberal, that is simply wrong, I'm enraged because I don't recall hearing her say one true or godly thing tonight. In other words, she's a pot calling the kettle black (when the kettle is actually a brown).
She characterized liberals as an intolerant religion--that we all follow the same mantras and infuse our children, government and schools with our radical agenda. Ha! If that were true we'd be so powerful! The truth is, we have lots of competing ideas. If we are unified as liberals at all, it is possibly the principle that knowledge is good, that learning is good, that honest debate is good, and that science is generally good (and valid). We are tolerant, but are wary of the intolerant. This can lead to intolerance of the intolerant, naturally, but liberal principles include tolerance. She is telling us we're generally intolerant and weak at the same time she's saying we're so powerful. Illogical.
So I wonder which conservative first hired her to go around saying that liberal men are wimpy. That seems to be her whole M.O. Watch out for the godless, wimpy liberal threat!
Huh? That's hardly something to make us shudder--oh wait, that straw man is so that we don't ELECT liberals. It's much better to elect uninformed "strong" conservatives who can't handle wars, national disasters, money or scientific truths. Yeah, that's better for America.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Solidarity
I won't be buying anything today, and I'm wearing a white shirt. As my husband pointed out to me, illegal immigrants are human.
I was first moved by the growing masses around the Georgia state capital building--pride, awe, and a feeling that those people I used to know were supporting the protest of working, albeit illegal, immigrants.
Then a woman in Denver said she was shutting down her restaurant business to join the parade because (I paraphrase), "Money comes and goes but friends...I want to be there for my friends." Denver expects 50,000 people to protest in part because of a ballot measure that attempts to take away social services and school tuition from illegal immigrants.
I remember a liberal friend of mine remarked at how much illegal immigrants (and I imagine the working poor as well) cost the healthcare industry and that that was our national problem. I was disappointed that she was blaming healthcare costs on the poor, rather than an economic system that exploits the poor. Do we want lower healthcare costs and higher grocery costs instead? Hmmm.
I thought this was the United States:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me..." http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
I was first moved by the growing masses around the Georgia state capital building--pride, awe, and a feeling that those people I used to know were supporting the protest of working, albeit illegal, immigrants.
Then a woman in Denver said she was shutting down her restaurant business to join the parade because (I paraphrase), "Money comes and goes but friends...I want to be there for my friends." Denver expects 50,000 people to protest in part because of a ballot measure that attempts to take away social services and school tuition from illegal immigrants.
I remember a liberal friend of mine remarked at how much illegal immigrants (and I imagine the working poor as well) cost the healthcare industry and that that was our national problem. I was disappointed that she was blaming healthcare costs on the poor, rather than an economic system that exploits the poor. Do we want lower healthcare costs and higher grocery costs instead? Hmmm.
I thought this was the United States:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me..." http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
That Matt Lauer
Dear Today Show and Matt Lauer,
I am a stay-at-home mom and an artist. I am floored at how biased your programming has become in support of the Bush administration and the Republican party. I have noticed very pro-Bush news stories on the Today show since I began watching it since my baby was born. The piece on Barbara Bush recently showed Bush working out in the gym twice, the same shot--and I can recall no mention of the current war, or Barbara's thoughts about it. Matt Lauer recently interviewed Ann Coulter like she was a respected journalist instead of the attack-dog partisan spin doctor that she is. I heard him hopefully suggest that Republicans might be able to distance themselves from President Bush's dishonesty and unpopularity during the next election in an interview with Tim Russert (Russert, friend to many Republicans, didn't think that Republicans could distance themselves from Bush since they've been so supportive of Bush's dishonesty and failures). This morning Lauer asked Pat Buchanan how the Democratic party would respond to the Delay scandal--implicit in Lauer's "question" was a republican talking-points attack on the Democratic party. He said something about Democrats having no agenda. How does he know? Has he checked the Democratic web site lately or talked to leading Democrats in Congress? Does the press even report what Democrats say anymore? You all seem to just listen and repeat what Republicans say about Democrats. Do you only listen to the party in power? In any case, this he said/she said kind of reporting isn't journalism (or at least, it is now, but journalism used to be something better). To top it all, the Today Show ran a fluff piece today discussing God and President Bush--it lacked any coherent criticism of how religion is used hypocritically by governments, including members of ours lately, to cajole and manipulate the people. In my opinion, you have seriously comprimised journalistic integrity and your responsibility to the American people to be objective in your reporting.
[P.S. I'm trying very hard to strip "I like" or "I don't like" he or she from my language because I don't want our son growing up thinking, "Does he or she like me?" It is very hard not to say, "I don't like that Matt Lauer."]
I am a stay-at-home mom and an artist. I am floored at how biased your programming has become in support of the Bush administration and the Republican party. I have noticed very pro-Bush news stories on the Today show since I began watching it since my baby was born. The piece on Barbara Bush recently showed Bush working out in the gym twice, the same shot--and I can recall no mention of the current war, or Barbara's thoughts about it. Matt Lauer recently interviewed Ann Coulter like she was a respected journalist instead of the attack-dog partisan spin doctor that she is. I heard him hopefully suggest that Republicans might be able to distance themselves from President Bush's dishonesty and unpopularity during the next election in an interview with Tim Russert (Russert, friend to many Republicans, didn't think that Republicans could distance themselves from Bush since they've been so supportive of Bush's dishonesty and failures). This morning Lauer asked Pat Buchanan how the Democratic party would respond to the Delay scandal--implicit in Lauer's "question" was a republican talking-points attack on the Democratic party. He said something about Democrats having no agenda. How does he know? Has he checked the Democratic web site lately or talked to leading Democrats in Congress? Does the press even report what Democrats say anymore? You all seem to just listen and repeat what Republicans say about Democrats. Do you only listen to the party in power? In any case, this he said/she said kind of reporting isn't journalism (or at least, it is now, but journalism used to be something better). To top it all, the Today Show ran a fluff piece today discussing God and President Bush--it lacked any coherent criticism of how religion is used hypocritically by governments, including members of ours lately, to cajole and manipulate the people. In my opinion, you have seriously comprimised journalistic integrity and your responsibility to the American people to be objective in your reporting.
[P.S. I'm trying very hard to strip "I like" or "I don't like" he or she from my language because I don't want our son growing up thinking, "Does he or she like me?" It is very hard not to say, "I don't like that Matt Lauer."]
Why do Bush's conservatives want Presidential tyranny forever more?
"...No doubt the Bush Administration will fight Specter's bill - for the simple reason that it does not want to be tested by a court, for it wants neither checks nor balances, but simple the unilateral exercise of executive power. And even if Specter can get the bill through the Senate, Bush's soldiers in the monocratic House will kill it."
Is it ignorance over the issue that affects every American's civil rights? Is it a thirst for ABSOLUTE power for YOUR guy (nevermind that you're setting a precedent for THEIR guy later)?
John Dean on Bush's illegal wire tapping program--Bush is worse than Nixon, and he lies, lies, lies (far worse than Clinton when it comes to you and me!!!).
Is it ignorance over the issue that affects every American's civil rights? Is it a thirst for ABSOLUTE power for YOUR guy (nevermind that you're setting a precedent for THEIR guy later)?
John Dean on Bush's illegal wire tapping program--Bush is worse than Nixon, and he lies, lies, lies (far worse than Clinton when it comes to you and me!!!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)