Just My Opinion

Grandpa likes Obama???

2008-05-10T10:21:00.002-05:00

I had dinner with my paternal grandparents last night, which is always an adventure. Grandpa is one of those perfectly stereotypical grumpy old men, but last night, he managed to shock me with the completely unexpected: he wants Obama to be the Democratic nominee so he can vote for him in November.

Ok, cool. Wait, What???

I am not sure how to process this. There are a few things in life I have come to count on and Grandpa being stubbornly, blindly Republican has always been one of them.

This is a man who, in the 60's, wouldn't let his 21 year-old daughter have the car to go see Kennedy speak at the University because "I didn't vote for him, what more do you need to know about him?"

His subversive, rebellious daughter-in-law (a.k.a my mother) quickly offered Aunt Carolyn a ride to the event, much to his dismay.

This is the man, who, upon finding out I was working for the Democratic Party during the 2000 election called, honestly confused about why I would accept such a job when, as he explained so simply "well, I am a Republican, you know."

It's come to be a fact of life, much like the sun rises in the east, grandpa is a Republican.

So, imagine my shock and disbelief when he admitted he would have liked to go hear Obama speak when he was in town last month, but at his age (nearly 90) and on his 3rd new knee, he couldn't manage waiting in line for several hours to get in.

I thought he might be making a joke, but he went on to discuss how he would vote for him in November.

Just add it to the list of things going on in this election year that I never expected to see in my lifetime.

Clinton, Obama, Michigan and Florida

2008-04-02T14:13:00.003-05:00

Friday, the local state dem convention will be welcoming not one, but two presidential candidates. That's right, against conventional wisdom, both Clinton and Obama will be visiting a state that hasn't gone blue since Lyndon Johnson.

But then nothing is conventional about this primary season and I don't anticipate the coming months will reflect anything we've seen in the past....thankfully. Still, it's surprising they are both taking time out from their heavy campaigning in PA to visit a state whose primary is over AND whose super delegates have already made public their candidate choice.

Maybe its a sign of just how unusual things are this year...where every primary seems to count ...except for Michigan and Florida. Ok, so somethings haven't changed at all. :)

On the topic of Michigan and Florida, with a primary race so close and neither candidate looking like the pledged delegate vote is going to get them to the finish line, why are we not getting re-votes set up in these two states?

Who are we punishing here? It's not the voters fault the elections were scheduled too early. It's not the candidates fault either. And it's not like we are talking about some kind of corruption or dishonesty, they held their elections too early. Come on. Someone needs to pony up the cash and get another primary held in these states.

Aren't Democrats tired...exhausted really, with elections being decided on technicalities rather than an accurate reflection of the desire of voters? If I lived in Florida, I don't think I would vote at all anymore.

Inspired.

2008-02-03T00:34:00.000-06:00

Eight years, I've been waiting for this.

You can't deny this is powerful stuff, even if you don't agree with his politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHA_ZTvOgUMIt was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.

Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can.

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --

Yes. We. Can.

The Issues

2008-01-21T10:31:00.000-06:00

I've finally started taking a look at the basic issues positions of various candidates.
CNN has a nifty little interactive deal that lets you choose an issue and get a small bit of info on all the major candidates and what their position is on an issue. They tend to include specifics on if and when the candidate's position has changed over the course of time, which is interesting.

The major stuff they cover are:
Abortion - of course, because it matters so much if a president is pro-life or pro-choice, given this office has the ability to overturn supreme court decisions. This is not an issue on which I judge any candidate.

Gun Control - For me, the more you want to control my ability to purchase fire-arms, the better. I have yet to meet anyone who really wants too much gun control. Oh, you know, own guns, fine; just not the guns that make it so easy to kill in bulk. Oh, and I'd prefer that we not give guns to crazy people, children and I dunno, felons? Seems like it would be wise to limit sales to people who have proven they tend to break the law and shoot people. Hillary wins on gun control cuz she has the biggest paragraph next to her name.

Health Care - This is a key issue for me. They turn it into such a complicated thing. For this reason, I am not all that hot about Hillary's position, tho better than conservative solutions (or non-solutions), it seems more like a jumble of stuff rather than a solid plan. Obama has the edge here with his proposed national health insurance program which is simply for those who cannot get it elsewhere. The only thing wanting is a mandate for coverage of all Americans. Most liberal candidates want to cover the cost of such a program by repealing the Bush tax cut for incomes over $250,000. Yay that.

Immigration - Of the guys left in, Gravel and Kucinich are the only two who opposed the Great Wall of Mexico. Am I the only one who thinks this is one of the dumbest plans ever? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution, but then it's not a visible "problem" where I am, so it's not as big a concern. We have help wanted signs at most of the fast-food joints in town, so if Mexicans have taken all the jobs in your area, come on up here, we need a new fry guy at the Mickey D's.

Stem Cell Research - Well, all the liberals support this and all the conservatives, save Giuiani and McCain oppose it. Is this an issue? Should it be an issue? No. Fund the research, it's important.

Iraq - Oh, for fucks sake. Alright, I was against it from the very beginning and Gravel, Kucinich and Obama were with me. But, well, I understand why the rest were not and I am willing to give them a pass based on what they want to do now and how reasonable and effective it will be. Let's take a look and see what they've got, shall we? Oh, that was just depressing. Can't blame them, I have no idea what should be done either. Cut and run is appealing, but probably not wise for the safety and stability of the region..blah blah blah.

Same-sex marriage - As vehemently as social conservatives oppose this, I support it. And yet, nobody is stepping up to be my candidate on this issue. Maybe they are right, it should be left to the states to decide. Still, I am disappointed guys.

Social Security - Well, as an issue, Mitt Romney (gasp) seems to offer the only pro-active suggestion of forming "an independent panel" which is probably just as useful as doing nothing at all. Doesn't concern me overly much, given that my generation long ago got the message that we should plan for retirement without Social Security as a consideration. Which is good, cuz clearly nobody plans to do anything about it.

Taxes - While Gravel's plan to get rid of the IRS is fun to fantasize about, I will go with Obama on this one. More child tax credits and less capital gains tax relief sounds like a good direction.

After a surface examination of the issues stances for the majors, I am leaning towards Obama. I like his positions on the issues that matter to me most: health care, taxes, iraq, plus he's got the stuff, that elusive quality that immediately says "this guy is a leader."

Republican tactics

2008-01-09T12:50:00.000-06:00

Democrats.org has a post called "GOP Boasts About "Caging" Efforts" that's worth checking out...

"In a recent e-mail to party supporters, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach bragged about the Republican Party's efforts at "caging" voters. In an e-mail message sent to state Republicans, Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach reviewed the party’s accomplishments this..."

So, this wasn't exactly what I thought I would be writing about when I revived my little political rant blog, but in reading the short blog story linked to above, I am reminded of something that happened 8 years ago when I worked for the Kansas Democratic Party during the 2000 election cycle.

Let me first say that I cannot say with certainty that Democrats don't do this kind of thing, but, I can say that the particular state party that I worked for did not. My impression, as well, is that conventional wisdom generally says the more people who vote, the better Democrats tend to perform in the resulting elections. So, if that theory holds true, and most democratic political operatives believe it does, democrats are better off going door to door to offer rides to polls to get as many people as possible out to vote. Hence the advent of the Get Out The Vote programs you often hear about as election day nears.

But anyway, back to this memory...it was the eve of the election. Several candidates were using a relatively new tool to contact voters...the recorded phone call. You use a phone list, like you would a mailing list and the computer calls the list to play the recorded message reminding people to vote or passing along whatever information the candidate chooses.

The morning the polls opened, we began getting calls from irate voters complaining that our candidates had been calling them at 1...2...3am with a message attacking the conservative opponent. Ironically, staffers working for the candidate the message supposedly came from received calls as well. Hmmm.

Our office was responsible for coordinating the use of this service for our candidates, we made all the arrangements with the company providing this service and after confirming with them, we found that there were no calls scheduled nor performed at those hours and well, we had no knowledge of any planned negative attack message either.

So you tell me? Who ends up benefiting from calls made at 2am claiming to be from the democratic candidate attacking his opponent on the eve of the election?

And now tell me that the story above isn't just more of the same, 8 years later. What is so offensive about this to me is that they were bragging about it in the referenced email.

"Hey, we managed to keep more voters away from the polls in a complete and utter corruption of the political process! Yeehaw!"

Look, everybody is trying to find that edge to increase the numbers in their favor, I know that; our office spent time doing just that, knocking on some doors, but not others, knowing that spending more time with certain people is a better use of resources...but not once, during the entire process did we ever do anything or even entertain the idea of trying to discourage people from voting.

Studio 60 - a not so liberal post

2007-09-24T14:45:00.000-05:00

It should come as no shock that I was a West Wing junkie for 6 years. I very nearly cried when the show was cancelled. It always did a brilliant job of appealing to my liberal senses as well as my more egalitarian side. Just when you think they were getting too liberal, they would come up with a show that gave serious treatment to the idea that we need both sides represented in our government and that both sides may have legitimate points.

But, I'm not here to write about that show. I could go on and on. But, let's move on, shall we?
So, being a West Wing (and Aaron Sorkin projects in general) fan, my dispair was mollified upon hearing of the arrival of Studio 60.

New show, some West Wing veterans, Aarom and director, Tommy Schlamme back together again. Yay! (This post is coming now because I just got around to watching the last 6 episodes downloaded from iTunes.)

Ok, well, as anyone familiar with the show now knows, Studio 60 was no West Wing.
Liberal themes go hand and hand with Sorkin shows. That we have all come to expect. But, even I was sort of ....bothered...by HOW liberal the story lines got and it just didn't quite feel right. It personified everything conseratives love to hate. Hollywood, sitting in it's gilded throne, passing judgement on the rest of the country for not "getting" how things really are.

Not exactly the most ideal way to bring attention to what's wrong with the world. Hell, I even found myself occassionally sympathizing with Harriet, the token conservative, Christian.

So, while I miss the Sorkin, quick-witted, fast-pased, reeking of liberal-bias shows, I can see why this one didn't last.

Hmm, maybe we could work on getting term limits lifted and bring back the West Wing.

Rehashing an old topic

2007-09-05T19:30:00.000-05:00

In response to my blog about my immense disappointment in the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, someone sent this:
_____________________________________________________________
Anonymous said...: In the words of Trace Adkins, "Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from me".
Everyone, liberal and conservative have the right to say what they wish, within the law...and everyone else has the right to react the way they wish within the law.
Some people don't like what the Dixie Chicks said.
Some people don't like how groups of people reacted.

Oh well. You can't protect one and not the other.
"Everyone" has consequences to their speech and their actions. Has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The government did nothing to them. It was citizens that don't like what they said and decided to protest them....we have to protect their right to do that as well.
You can't pick and choose whose rights you want to stand up for.
_________________________________________________________

Well, you CAN pick and choose whose rights you stand up for, what with freedom of speech, but that's not really the issue.

The freedom of people to respond as they did to the DC's comment was never in question. I never advocated their rights be denied. What I said was, they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I think they are crappy people, plain and simple. Let's face it, the CD smashing parties were just a variation on book burning. Book burning! Who is in favor of book burning? Book burning is rarely an action taken by government against it's people, its usually people taking action against themselves and yet, its widely regarded as censorship.

Let me take one small moment to say, by the way, that death threats aren't protected speech and, correct me if I'm wrong, they are illegal. This was just one minor segment of what went on, but still, a disturbing example of the crazed, mob-like response these women received.

My point is there were two kinds of behavior: opinions expressed (and thus worthy of protection under the first amendment) and punitive action taken (which is very different). Seems like, to me, when a radio network pulls the other-wise popular work of an artist whose opinion (not expressed in the music) they don't like, even when their customers are requesting to have the music played...well, I'm not an attorney, but I bet there's one out there who would say "sue the bastards!"

lol my apologies, this particular argument is suffering from my current jet lag and general travel malaise. My point and the justification for it was much more precise before I started typing. But, what I want to make clear is this: I wasn't suggesting the government take away the rights of those who protested against what the DC's said. I was suggesting what they did was wrong - practically, morally, ethically I disagree with their opinions on EVERY level, dislike them personally (even tho i don't know them -ha!) and think they should be flogged, burned at the stake and fired from their jobs. In that order. (Was that a run-on sentence? my apologies) I think it sucks these people get to call themselves American. Seems to me, doing whatever is in your power to punish someone for their opinion (and this goes beyond just expressing an opinion in response) is as un-American as un-American gets.

A balance of power.

2006-11-08T08:39:00.000-06:00

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.

2006-11-06T15:31:00.000-06:00

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

2006-08-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-02-14T11:03:00.000-06:00

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...

2006-01-26T23:16:00.000-06:00

From Penn Gillette, in Reason -

"I get that feeling that maybe I endorse some stuff that doesnÂt make sense, and IÂd 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, ÂShould we have been in World War II?,Â 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 IÂm not sure I can support that. I have this weird kind of feeling that if I knew enough, maybe peace isnÂt 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. :)

R. I. P.

2005-12-19T09:58:00.000-06:00

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I just don't see how it could be any more clear. Any and all American citizens were potentially subjected to phone tapping of international calls.

Was there a threat. Yes. Is this exactly the sort of abuse in the name of safety that inspired the authoring this amendment in the first place? Absolutely.

What's next?

Some Minneapolis Workers May Soon See Living Wage

2005-11-22T10:22:00.000-06:00

Yay Minneapolis.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2592

2000

2005-11-01T23:13:00.000-06:00

"We talk about honoring the troops. How about we honor them by giving a damn when their killed? Our kids are dying over there and this country, the people, the media, we all chug along like nothing is wrong. We'll spend a month obsessing about Terry Shivo, but dare we show a body of a fallen soldier. The most watched cable news station will spend an hour a night on a missing girl in Aruba, but god forbid we pay any attention when kids are killed in action.

We've had 2000 American trees fall in that forest over there and we don't even know it, not really. But, maybe we don't want to know about our children dying so, lucky for us this war isn't really being televised. We're not seeing images of soldiers dying in the arms of their comrades, being blown apart in the streets of Bagdad. But they are, by the thousands and all the American public wants to concern itself with is weather Brad and Angelina really are a couple. At least with Vietnam we all watched and we all got angry.

We have a people and a goverment in denial. We currently have no strategy to fight this war, no time table for gettting out, some of the troops could be extended 20+ years. Their mothers and fathers have to spring for body armor because the Army doesn't and their getting killed. And we as a nation in denial are letting them. We simply don't seem to care."

This was quoted from a monalog in an episode of Boston Legal, Nov. 1, 2005. It just occured to me that not only do I agree with everything he said, but I was guilty of the same denial of which he spoke. Something to think about.

America, land of the free. Well, not so much.

2005-10-21T11:17:00.000-05:00

I cut most of the article cuz its quite long, but I think the first paragraphs give you an idea of what it says.
There is a link to the full text. I did leave the contact information for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom incase you feel compelled to do something.

So the current administration, on their crusade against the evil of sex, is cracking down on pornography. Well, hey, the sounds and styles of the 80's are coming back as a retro trend, why not the war against naked pictures too? (its even more shocking to realize that this is the perogrative of the guy who REPLACED Ashcroft. Who knew it could get worse!)

This time, however, its all about those little deviant folks who spank and pee on each other. They deserve extra punishment.

Even if I accepted local community standards as a legitimate judge of obscenity -- how the HELL do they expect to set a "local community standard" on the web??? What's ok to the people of say, San Francisco and New York is not always ok with the folks in Topeka, Kansas. So, if Jo Bob logs on to a website housed in Cali and doesn't like the look of a chick tied up and being spanked, the San Francisco people should be prosecuted based on Kansas standards?

The real joke is, it won't make a bit of difference, really, because they cannot prosecute Canadians or Germans or the Japanese for hosting sites of this same type. It will still be out there, people will still look at it. They will have to start invading the lives of viewers, not providers and well, then I do hope they are prepared to prosecute their brothers, wives, cousins, uncles and children....

Of kids, age, submission, theology, and whatnot: "Friday, October 21, 2005
Why dont they just stand in the corner with a cross and a sword?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

October 20, 2005 - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has announced that his office will specifically target 'bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior' in pursuing new obscenity prosecutions. The Department of Justice began recruiting in late July for a new anti-obscenity squad to pursue obscenity prosecutions, and the FBI announced in September that it was forming an anti-obscenity task force to crack down on pornography.

Any website that has content containing 'bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior' should be forewarned that prosecution is possible. Additionally, Federal sentencing guidelines state that any obscenity-related punishment should be 'enhanced for sadomasochistic material.'
To contribute to the appeal of the CDA lawsuit, go to:
www.ncsfreedom.org/donations.htm

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom - www.ncsfreedom.org
Barbara Nitke - www.barbaranitke.com

###

Contact:
Susan Wright, NCSF Spokesperson
(917) 848-6544

A project of NCSF

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
media@ncsfreedom.org
www.ncsfreedom.org"

More news that comes as a surprise to no one.

2005-09-29T12:08:00.000-05:00

The Senate today voted 78-22 to confirm Judge John Roberts as the nation's 17th chief justice. Senate approval capped a two-month process surprisingly free of the partisan rancor widely expected when President Bush nominated Roberts in July. All of the Senate's Republicans, and about half of the Democrats, voted for Roberts. Roberts is the successor to William Rehnquist, who died earlier this month.

More important things to fight for

2005-09-15T12:31:00.000-05:00

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared Wednesday that the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, a decision that could potentially put the divisive issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ok, there might be a case for this. You shouldn't compel children to recite it, God shouldn't be a part of it, etc. etc.

But really, come ON! Don't we have more important things to worry about? I realize its rather un-liberal of me to take this stance. Wait no, I don't think it is. I would much rather these people spend their time and money making sure poor children are fed, homeless are housed, and real violations of civil rights are fought.

This is tantamount to the woman who files a sexual harassment claim because she sees a married man hug a single woman in the office. It gets in the way real issues people are going through, it taints the credibility of the fight against religious rights violations as a whole.

Why can't we step back and see the big picture? Will this bring meaningful change? No. Will it change the minds of people who believe this sort of language belongs in our government, that God has a place in government? No. It only irritates them. Because at the end of the day, its a small, petty cause and shows nobody how religious oppression can really affect someone's life.

Crimes against us all.

2005-09-03T08:31:00.000-05:00

United States of Shame - New York Times

In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Not only was the money depleted by the Bush folly in Iraq; 30 percent of the National Guard and about half its equipment are in Iraq.

Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.

Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.

Was he sacked instantly? No, our tone-deaf president hailed him in Mobile, Ala., yesterday: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Pat Roberts: have you been sniffing glue?

2005-08-24T17:10:00.000-05:00

Or are you just full of shit? Not that I actually expected you to provide lucid spirital leadership, given your track record.
Someone, please correct me if I am wrong, but did this man, who professes to respect life, God and the ten commandments publicly advocate for the assassination of the president of Venezuela? And did he NOT use as a justification for murder, a "huge pool of oil," among other things?

So, am I to understand that it's Thou Shall Not Kill unless it's for an assload of money?

Decisions are made by those who show up...and Karl Rove.

2005-07-31T15:36:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite quotes and here I find myself not even coming close to living by it. After last fall I, like many, said to hell with it. What is the point. Well I suppose the point is: Decisions are made by those who show up.

And Karl Rove.

I find myself again completely disgusted with our current adminstration and mouth agape with disblief as they arrogantly blather on as if they have done nothing wrong.
First it was a moral crime just to have been associated with the leak of a cia operative identity. Now, well it's all ok as long as no crime was committed and you can be sure they checked on that before announcing it to the world.

Are we really to believe that a man with a documented history of underhanded tactics and spiteful rhetoric didn't leak this woman's identity out of spite against her husband for publicly stating what we all now know to be the truth? Come ON! The man is a rat, we all know it and we all know he is good at his job. Is this NOT exacty the kind of thing he would do and isn't his ego just exactly big enough to believe he can get away with it.

I hate to say it...you don't know how MUCH i hate to say it, but he will.
Even I cannot muster the amount of idealistic naivete it takes to believe that we are not being set up to accept that he should sail through without a scratch because "no crime has been committed."

My singular hope is that in doing so, he will damage his boss and his bosses friends enough to make a difference in 2006..

Something I didn't know about Karl.

Rove's first mentor in politics was Don Segretti? Oh the irony!
(for those of you who don't know who Don Segretti is, Google Don Segretti and Watergate)

oh be still my beating heart

2005-02-10T14:51:00.000-06:00

The text below is copied and pasted from the link below. I would love to be here, on this earth, when something like this actually happens. The monumental changes in our society would be thrilling to watch. I have always been a strong believer that the right to earn a living and support yourself in a decent manner far exceeds the right for a business to earn a profit. Call me a communist if you must, but it's just right.

Memoirs of a Non-Mechanical Man

How the Progressives can win next election, and not even feel that bad about voting for Democrats.
When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive;... when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government.

--Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, are you burnt out and depressed about the Bush win?

Sad that bigotry won the presidency?

Think we're all doomed?

That the whole Democratic party is just as bad, and a bunch of spineless weasles to boot?

Don't fret, I have a surefire solution. A counter-zeitgeist for the anti-gay agenda and pure banality that won the last election: A Constitutional Ammendment Guaranteeing a Right to a Job at a Living Wage.

This is not only a surefire win for the democrats, if they adopted it as their platform, it's a surefire win for everyone who's fed up with them. Quite certainly going more rightward hasn't won them anymore elections, because even republicans don't want republican light. Fuck, Kerry's platform was more or less "Same Flavor, half the carbs."

So, this a really sneaky, and guaranteed to be successful way to inject progressive ideals back into the mainstream dialogue. Don't worry about a "Republican New Deal", they can't offer it. Honestly the only reasons the democrats can actually offer another "New Deal" is because they still have members that don't totally bend over to their large financing interests.

So, why is this a sure win?

One, because the Republican party can't come up with anything better. Which would you vote for if you were those reclusive undecided voters: Privatizing Social Security? Or... A constitutional right to a job at a wage you can live off of? Considering that 1 in 4 Americans falls below the ridiculously low federal poverty guidelines for their household, that's 1 in 4 Americans who're likely to vote their goddamn economic self-interest. "Gee, should I vote for privatizing social security and slashing social programs, all to benefit growth for the kleptocrats.... or should I vote for the immediate pay raise?" You figure that one out.

But wait, it gets better...

Two, A 2001 poll showed that 8 in 10 Americans support creating temporary government work programs for the unemployed. That's 82% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats, and 83% of Independants.

Three, A right to a job at a living wage cuts across both Progressive, and Conservative ethic. Thus the great neo-con fear: that someone would appeal to the inherent populism and nativism of the old-right, to take it to its actual logical conclusion --shafting the kleptocrats. Consider this, conservatives are allways those bitching about people on welfare not working and all of that bullshit, right? So, we as a nation put a high value on work, conservatives perhaps more so. But, 7 out of 10 poor people in our country actually work for a living. So successful has this political distraction been, that while we've moved millions off of welfare rolls, we've done nothing to actually improve wage conditions. And with wages falling across the board, for those who actually work for a living, (as opposed to those living off of rents and interest), along with jobs getting sent overseas, the time is now right to awaken that sleeping giant. Lets face it, you have to be nuts to politically oppose a guarantee that everyone whom is able to work shall have a job, and it shall be decent, and pay a wage you can live off.

Four, this is having your cake and eating it too. It's a progressive ideal, but also a staple of old-right populism, it appeals to the middle class, the lower class, the working class, the poor, the unemployed, the retired, pretty much everyone who isn't a CEO. You can vote your concience, because honestly, what better ticket is there at the moment that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and still vote for a party that will actually win. Sorry, hate to tell you, I love the Green Party, but It won't be next election, or the next 20, that they win a Presidency unless they stop running a national candidate and start pushing harder and harder into local candidates.

Five, This will get the momentum going. A giant, lambastic progressive win. People will forget the fucking New Deal, and instead be saying "Kids, when I was young, we pushed hard and got a guaranteed right to a job and and end to poverty, I wept when it happened."

Six, you'll be able to rub it in the faces of neo-conservatives and the DNC, and every other soulless bureaucrat for the next 20 elections.

So, in conclusion, while this is the cure to the Gay Marriage Ammendment, we must also take care that it doesn't end up like the Gay Marriage Ammendment, in the dustbin of History.

So, say "Fuck you, I won't vote for you." To your Congressman, unless they immidiately support this.

Hey, that's kind of catchy. I'm calling this the "Fuck you, I won't vote for you." Campaign.

And she's back

2005-02-03T08:59:00.000-06:00

I have been scolded about not adding to my blog in months (who knew, I have a reader!). I have a good excuse, I got a real job! I have to actually get dressed and go into an office every day, but I get paid more than I did when I was working in my pajamas and bunny slippers, so ok.
Another job perk, as it turns out, I have actually run into a Democratic activist. In North Dakota. I'm still in shock. He is, of course, equally thrilled to find me, being kinda-sorta, just a little bit liberal. (ha) He even assures me there are more like me, lurking in the shadows and promises to call me when they decide to meet.

I have been thinking more about my current state of residence and its bizarre red/blue status. ND consistantly votes red for president (speaking of the pres. he is invading Fargo today to bore everyone with his SS privitization plans) but all 3 of our representatives in Washington are blue, and fairly effective I must say, considering they only respresent about 600,000 people. But come on, what is with us? Can't we make up our minds? Actually, I heard someone break it down recently and it makes sense. But ultimately it seems to be more acceptable to be outwardly conservative here.

Anyway, I don't really have a point today, sorry, just jumping back in and warming up.

More Votes Than Voters In Ohio

2004-11-09T13:47:00.000-06:00

Watch This

ya, like this is a big surprise....*sighs*

I wanna have Jon Stewarts love child

2004-11-02T16:26:00.000-06:00

IFILM

- Television: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host

and by "people" he means the supreme court

2004-11-02T13:26:00.000-06:00

CNN.com: "President Bush said 'I am confident in the judgment of the people.' "

I guess he forgot that last time, the people voted for someone else.

if you believe in omens

2004-10-20T23:12:00.000-05:00

ESPN.com: "After a gut-wrenching week in the ALCS, Boston has taken the drama out of Game 7. Johnny Damon's two home runs, including a second-inning grand slam, has the Sox up 10-3 in the ninth and the Yanks on the verge of a historic collapse."

Bush supporter criticizing him 2 weeks before tight election..hmmmm.

2004-10-20T08:51:00.000-05:00

CNN.com - Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties - Oct 19, 2004: "NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, 'We're not going to have any casualties.'"

I wonder what that means? Does it mean he thinks nobody is going to die? Or does it mean he thinks nobody who matters is goinng to die?

More reasons why voting should be required

2004-10-10T21:17:00.000-05:00

If you required every adult to vote, reguardless of felony convicitons or anything else you would wipe out what is beginning to look like rampant denial of voters' right to cast a ballot. And it's not because they are white or rich...

E-Voting Machines / Vote Integrity

Bush forgets he owns a tree growing company...

2004-10-10T15:11:00.000-05:00

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

From factcheck.ORG (as opposed to factcheck.com):

"In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income."

Liar or Idiot?

Why lie? It can't really help you that much and quite obviously you WILL get caught and swiftly. So, logically, that leaves idiot. I suppose there is an arugment for just being too lazy to keep up on the details of your own business ventures. But, if this is the case, this is the man running our country (or is he? see reports of Bush being fed answers during the debate) with a total disregard for the complexity, details or truth of the job.

the deciding factor.

2004-10-06T17:28:00.000-05:00

Cheney Blunder Lauded Anti-Bush Web Site

I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other in terms of who won or didn't, during the VP debate. I agreed, obviously, with what Edwards said, not Cheney. But in terms of convincing undecided voters, which is really all that matters I couldn't objectively say.

That is, until I read this particular story in the link above. I think it was good for Dick to send everyone to factcheck.org. If only he had actually done that. He actually sent them to factcheck.com where there is a message from someone specifically stating why not to vote for Bush. This is comical, but not critical.

Honestly, the only reason I can think that the Bush camp would send people to factcheck.org is because they REALLY believe they are being honest about Kerry. I like the site, because they research the facts and let you know who is lying about what.

So, seems to me that sending people to a website that proves most of your allegations against Kerry are false is not a strategic move. *shrugs* And on that I say Edwards behaved smarter than Cheney.

The best thing I could say about Cheney was that he outperformed Bush. THAT shouldn't be good enough, but probably will be for some.

VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting

2004-10-05T17:50:00.000-05:00

VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting

A gift from my blogging friend Rowan. :)

Those pesky lib- i mean CONSERVATIVE flip-floppers.

2004-10-05T16:56:00.000-05:00

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link

Why Not?

2004-10-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

-Plato

I have been thinking about this idea for awhile. I know most likely there has to be some point I am missing as to why this simply isn't a good idea, but here it is anyway.

Americans should be compelled to vote.

We are compelled to support our government both financially and defensively. Regardless of choice, we pay taxes and at the whim of our elected officials, we can be made to take up arms and kill those deamed our ememy.

Seems to me that making someone show up on election day and give their opinion (even if that opinion is that Mickey Mouse can do a better job of running the country than the guy who has the job today) isn't that much of an imposition.

Compelling a citizen to participate in his democracy is so vital to his sucessful representation he should be required to do it for his own good.
We have all sorts of laws on the books that require people to act in defense of their own well being (seatbelt laws for example).

I realize there are details to be dealt with (felons, mental capacity, etc.) but ask yourself: Are they really prohibitive to the concept itself. I don't think they are. The details can be worked out elsewhere.

It can be seen as sacrifice of freedom, to be compelled to vote. There is an arguement for that. However, considering we are a country who compells its citizens to pay for its government and die for it as well, mandatory voting seems a rather minor sacrifice of freewill.

But will it happen? No.

During my short time working in politics, I learned things from people who have been involved for years, and witnessed things myself, that have led me to the opinion that Republicans don't want everyone voting. A great deal of time and effort is spent discouraging large numbers of minority and lower income voters from reaching the polls. Not necessarily overt efforts to block them from the polls (although those do exist - see Florida November 2000) but psychological efforts to alienate and convince these voters they do not matter, their vote doesn't count, even that their vote may be criminal.

Republicans have traditionally (in most recent times) been very successful in discourgaing from voting, citizens who would most likely vote against them in large numbers. There IS a reason Democrats spend time and effort going door to door on election day, asking people to go vote, even offering them rides to the polls. Because it generally works in their favor!

I am sure someone is currently outraged that I would make such an accusation. So, don't take my word for it, take a Republican's:
Bob Herbert:
Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids | The Arizona Daily Star

But, my point here is that I think generally Conservatives will be against this concept and perhaps Liberals would not. To break it down further, I assume Libertarians will dispise the idea and Populists would embrace it. Prove me wrong or reinforce my assumptions, but let me know what you think.

Thank you Mr. Springsteen

2004-10-01T15:47:00.000-05:00

"If you mislead your people into a war, and that costs a thousand lives and many, many more wounded and 200 billion dollars of taxpayer money, and it turns out the grounds for going to war have been false, you lose your job," said the rock star.

Bruce Springsteen, as quoted in an AFP story on Oct 1, 2004 reguarding why he is participating in the "Vote for Change" tour.

Vote for Change Concert Tour | America Coming Together (ACT)

CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod

2004-10-01T11:47:00.000-05:00

CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod | October 1, 2004 08:30:49

See, some people can think for themselves. ;)

People fall for this crap.

2004-09-29T00:35:00.000-05:00

My new favorite website www.factcheck.org

Let's set aside for a moment that the ad described below is just shitty politics. How dare they use the images of people dying on September 11th and the attack against Russian schoolchildren a few weeks ago for political gain.

Quoted from www.factcheck.org:
An ad by the Republican group "Progress for America Voter Fund ," mostly funded by wealthy GOP donors, suggests Kerry can't defend against terrorists "who want to kill us." It shows images of Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The ad claims Kerry has "a 30-year record of supporting cuts in defense and intelligence," misleading charges that we've de-bunked before. It also accuses Kerry of "endlessly changing positions on Iraq," a claim that is without factual basis.

It begins by showing 9/11 plot leader Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists while the announcer slowly intones: "These people want to kill us."

It presents more images of the attack on Russian school children, the attack on a Spanish commuter train, and firemen in the smoking rubble of the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001.

...THE TRUTH...
"Since 1996, the John Kerry who once opposed the Apache helicopter and wanted to cut Tomahawk cruise-missile funds by 50% has evolved into a steady supporter of military budgets."

It's true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he's opposed them, and hasn't voted against one for the past eight years.

Here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor before voting to give Bush the authority:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

That's consistent with Kerry's llater criticism of Bush for failing -- as Kerry sees it -- to secure enough help and support from other countries. And that's been Kerry's position ever since.

When the San Francisco Chronicle combed through 200 of Kerry's speeches and statements on Iraq, it found instances of "clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations" that made Kerry's position difficult to follow. But it also found that "taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago."

Why.

2004-09-26T13:13:00.000-05:00

Why, when by all accounts the Swift Boat accusations have been proven false based on testimony from numerous sources including reports documenting events, do so many people believe what they said?

Why, when it is illegal for anyone from a policial campaign to be communicating with an organization like the one that put out the Swift Boat commercials, did Bush escape seemingly unscathed, when it was revealed a high-level member of his own campaign was directly involved with Swift Boat group?

Why was Bush rewarded with a bump in the polls when, according to current information available, his campaign was directly involved in perpetuating information which is generally accepted as false?

thanks CBS - for nothing.

2004-09-26T11:43:00.000-05:00

You know what annoys me the most about this CBS nonsense? It's that nobody seems be paying attention to the fact that the available and undisputed facts seem to remain the same. Bush didn't show up for work for about six months and he failed to get a required medical exam to maintain flight status. In otherwords, at the very least, serving his country was not his top priority at the time. At the very worst, he may have been AWOL and clearly, allowed to get away with it. These documents, fake or otherwise, don't change that. Interestingly, every time Bush tries to answer these questions, his answer changes. I guess when George calles Kerry a flip-flopper, he is calling on the "takes one to know one" school of thinking.

CBS. Did they screw up, probably. They should have consulted a few more experts before they went public. But, that said, lets count how many ridiculously irresponsible stories were published in the 90's about the Clinton Administration. The press publishes first and fact-checks second. This has become standard operating procedure, thanks to the emergence of "news" sources like the Drudge Report and the American Spectator where facts, by all appearances, are not a priority. Conservative news sources seem to have perfected the art of throwing out whatever they can come up with to trash Democrats and when the truth comes out, not only do they manage to escape a sullied reputation (because their audience has no expectation of truth, only trash?) but they manage to do significant damage in the proces, regardless of being proven false.

Why do conservatives seem to be so good at this game and liberals so bad????

getting started.

2004-09-26T11:00:00.000-05:00

hello. here it is, my first blog. exciting eh?