A balance of power.

It's good. Inspite of my desire otherwise, the country is fairly evenly split between liberal and conservative ideaologies. That split should be reflected in the makeup of our goverment, for a true representation of the will of the people. I would prefer a lean towards progressive goverment and I think this election has given us that. If the Senate races still pending go the way they appear to be headed, it will be a solidly liberal administration for the next two years. Even better! But, well, for now, I suppose it's as it should be.

More good stuff....

Nancy Pelosi - this is a big one guys - the first EVER female speaker of the house is from one of the most liberal districts in the country. Long over due. Seriously, never before has a woman been so close to the presidency. If she performs well, her leadership will go a long way towards convincing Americans a woman can actually hold the office.

AARP - for a heavy media campaign urging voters not to vote for candidates without knowing their stand on the issues. The commecial was SO annoying, but message is a good one, so cheers to them.

Social Conservatives Wake Up? - Have they come to realize that they are being told what they want to hear by politicians who are capitalizing on their hyper-conservative views to get them to the polls without a true belief in what social cons stand for?

Minimum Wage - I am happy to say 4 states voted to raise their minimum wage rates, continuing a trend among states of taking matters into their own hands on an issue our conservative federal goverment refuses to take on.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public.

Shut Up and Sing is a documentary opening this Friday in wide release. Of course, I don't expect it to come to my neck of the woods, but I do hope I get the chance to see it.

It's release has me thinking again about the entire situation and the disgusting display of hatred towards someone who *gasp* had an opinion. It is amazing to me the limited opinions people have on this subject. People I've talked with either hate them and demonize them for speaking out against a president and a war (which now, three years later, it's perfectly acceptable to criticize); or they think the Chicks should have known better because their audience is predominanly convervative and therefore they should have just kept their mouths shut.

Known better???? Seriously???

People really think that the issue is weather or not people buy their records? The Dixie Chicks don't seem to think so. Nor do they seem to care and good for them! Money or popularity or success pales in comparison to what the American public seems to be asking them to give up, their fundamental right to speak out and have an opinion.

Not only is it our right to speak out against our own goverment, it's our responsibility to do so when lives are at stake and we see this goverment is acting irresponsibly. That is precisely why the 1st ammendment to our Constitution was written.

And look what we've done with it.

The point here is not that it's wrong to disgree or disapprove of what they said or even that what they said may have merit, but it is wrong to systematically work to take them down, to send them death threats, to essentially work to prevent them or anyone else who might speak out with a dissenting opinon from feeling free to do so.

Twelve little words - and look what they did in return.

Natalie Maines may be ashamed the President is from Texas, but I am ashamed to share the moniker of "American cititizen" with people who actually have the gall to say "Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public."

Joe vs. The Liberals

So, the height of the current election cycle is upon us. Of course, it's the mid-term election season so there just isn't much to talk about - especially for a chick in a state where there really aren't any major races going on.

That said - there appears to be something of interest going on in Connecticut.
Poor Joe. Personally, I have some sympathy for the guy. But politically, I feel he is losing his job because of exceptionally poor judgement in terms of the company he keeps. Seriously, losing an incumbant Senatorial seat is a difficult feat, requiring serious transgressions like kicking puppies or...well sleeping with the enemy.

Obviously, his approval of the war is a factor. But I think this is more an image problem than anything else. Let's not forget, 3 years ago, few pols of any flavor came out against invading Iraq. Now, many are quite critical.

My feeling on this is - I, your basic soccer mom of above average intelligence, could see this was a phenomenally bad idea, backed by lies and misinformation in order to push the shady-at-best agenda of our current administration...why couldn't you?

Back to Joe. The current president is not a popular guy today. Members of his own party are distancing themselves from him. This begs the question: Joe, what were you doing hugging this guy infront of God and everyone during that fateful State of the Union? If I were your publicist, I'd kick your ass.

Seriously, I suspect Joe was suffering from a certain amount of arrogance in the belief he had job security as a 3 term Senator and former VP candidate. In feeling he had job security he was free to position himself as some kind of aisle-stradling statesman working to resolve the evils of partisanship. He went too far.

For me, pushing everything else aside, Karl Rove claming Joe as a close, personal friend sealed the deal. Who ever told him cozying up to the least popular conservative players on the field today was a good idea should be fired. And so should Joe.

In the interest of looking for the positive...

From www.One.org:

WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES FY 2007 BUDGET REQUEST


Feb 6 2006
Contact: Meighan Stone
Phone: (202) 464-1345

The White House today announced its budget request for Fiscal Year 2007, with an increase of $2 billion for the overall fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty. With significant funding increases concentrated on the President's AIDS Initiative and the Millennium Challenge Account, the budget request also contains cuts to core humanitarian and development accounts for development assistance, initiatives that help mothers and children in the world's poorest countries and life-saving funding for The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.


ONE STATEMENT:

Over 150,000 ONE supporters emailed and called the White House, asking that President Bush support a $5 billion increase above FY2006 passed levels for U.S. humanitarian and development assistance efforts that save millions of lives and create hope, opportunity and stability for people in the world's poorest countries.

The FY07 budget request development assistance increases represent welcome progress towards that goal, with much more work to be done. ONE supporters will continue working to ensure that Congress both fully funds this request and restores cuts to effective initiatives, as well as continuing to ask our leaders to give an additional 1% of the U.S. federal budget to effective development assistance that keeps America's life-saving promises to fight AIDS and poverty.

$2 Billion is better than none, which is what I would have expected from an administration that recently asked Congress to take food from the mouths of seniors, women and children while continuing to cut taxes for people who frankly, can afford to buy all the food they want and more.

Ok, so much for trying to remain positive.

A quote sparks some thoughts...

From Penn Gillette, in Reason -

"I get that feeling that maybe I endorse some stuff that doesn’t make sense, and I’d like someone to beat me up about that a little more. I have a certain kind of peacenik default in all my interactions. If you ask me, “Should we have been in World War II?,” I instantly say no. World War I, certainly no. Vietnam, certainly no. Iraq, no. I really seem to think that the answer to everything is peace, and I’m not sure I can support that. I have this weird kind of feeling that if I knew enough, maybe peace isn’t always the answer."

I like the way this guy thinks. Really - people who can comfortably acknowledge they may not have all the answers rock my world. I have a way I want the world to be, a set of principles I believe in, but I like to think I don't foist it upon those who disagree with me. There should be discussion and debate of the issues. We should be more respectful of those who think differently than we do. And by that, I don't just mean speaking politely with them, I mean really listening to what they have to say and considering that there might be more than one way to think, that those we follow in the media don't always have the answer to every issue just because we share an ideological label with them.

Thinking for yourself and being able to come to terms with the realization that you are not always right, it's surprisingly rare. The truth is, I suspect our leaders don't necessarily subscribe to a single ideology with fixed black and white answers to the issues we face. They just appear to, because that's how they sell themselves as leaders. They know they are wrong, or at least not completely right. But they make a choice, for whatever motivates them and they sell it like it's Gospel.

I wish more people understood this, accepted it and could face that this means they have a responsibility to think for themselves and search for their own facts. We are all busy people, living our little lives and I get that. I don't always take the time to seek out the complete truth on things. I should, but who has that kinda time?

There are certain polarized media folks who are fond of saying we are manipulated by the media, the very industry of which they are a part, meanwhile they are hoping we won't notice they are just as much a part of that manipulating force. Just because they will point fingers at the "other side" doesn't mean they aren't just as much a part of the entire operation.

I could go on here for hours maybe, but hopefully I made my point somewhere along the way, which was to say --Penn Gillette makes my panties wet. :)