Tuesday, September 30, 2008

from nan. . .

The little diddy at the end is words from angryhippy; however, they are the same straight from my mouth, and the majority of any well educated human who actually understand economics and the "money". Peace, Nan

On Energy and Environmental Policy, Key Legislation Is in Limbo
September 30, 2008 at 8:46AM by Dan Shapley

All eyes are on the House of Representatives, which failed to pass a broadly unpopular but arguably necessary bailout of the U.S. financial sector. The consequences in the U.S. market began to be felt immediately, though in a hopeful sign, Asian and European markets didn't tank over night.

The House leaders, the President and the candidates have all been roundly condemned for failing to exercise enough leadership to approve the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, without which -- the argument goes -- global capital will continue to seize up, starving economic activity for years as banks continue to fail.

Meanwhile, the House and Senate have been quietly failing to renew tax credits necessary for solar and wind energy research and development. Both houses passed an extension of the tax credits, which are demonstrably necessary for the growth and development of these industries. And the growth of these industries is demonstrably necessary for the twin goals of energy independence and global warming abatement.

And yet, as the New York Times put it: "The House and the Senate conceded Monday that they were in a stalemate over proposals to provide tax incentives for the production and use of renewable energy, leaving the future of the nascent industry in limbo. "

This comes after Congress failed to agree to a compromise on offshore drilling that might have restricted access to near-shore areas, added additional environmental protections, or funneled royalties to renewable energy development. Instead, Congress just let its ban on offshore drilling lapse.

It comes as Congress appears to have let an Oct. 1 ban on oil shale development expire. This highly polluting method for extracting oil from stone is 180-degrees from the renewable energy investments virtually every long term strategist agrees we need -- for not only environmental reasons, but economic and national security reasons as well.

And it comes as news breaks that Congress is poised to strip $331 million in conservation spending from its bloated farm bill, removing one positive part of a flawed bill that will continue to amp up the overproduction of corn, with all its attendant pollution.

The importance of the renewable tax credits can't be overstated. Without these tax credits, investors won't bet on the new industries -- which need the credits to be cost-competitive with heavily-subsidized fossil fuels. The future of America, as an increasing number of thinkers agree, rests on revamping the U.S. economy to lead the world in renewable energy technology. That would free us from foreign oil, create millions of domestic jobs and new high-tech export industries and solve the global warming crisis to boot. It's a smart investment at a time when oil supplies are dwindling, fossil fuels are increasingly costing as much in dollars as they always have in environmental quality and the U.S. economy clearly needs to rely on a core of innovation in technology, not innovation in shadowy financial securities.

Ah, investment. Yes, without a fix for Wall Street's bad bets on bad mortgages, investors will be unwilling or unable to back a variety of economic activity, including new investments in renewable energy.

Congressional leaders, the President and the candidates have all said that lawmakers have to return to the table and craft some sort of bailout that is both effective and palatable -- one that, presumably, helps struggling homeowners more, costs taxpayers less and punishes those firms that enriched themselves by kicking the legs out from under the American economy.


Gosh, golly gee! Who would have thought they still don't give a shit about what's really important, even as they shout out their warnings of impending doom, while at the same time top economists are saying we don't need to bail out wall street to fix this. It may still cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but it needs to be going to prop up the American people who are the ones really hurting, and not a few bankers who got caught eating at the trough of monetary gluttony and Bush's corporate welfare policies. Fuck them. Let them go down with the ship. Then when they are at the brink of absolute financial devastation, throw their crooked asses in jail. Lets use the $700Billion to rebuild this country, not save a few banks from themselves. IMO

more from moore

Everyone said the bill would pass. The masters of the universe were already making celebratory dinner reservations at Manhattan's finest restaurants. Personal shoppers in Dallas and Atlanta were dispatched to do the early Christmas gifting. Mad Men of Chicago and Miami were popping corks and toasting each other long before the morning latte run.
But what they didn't know was that hundreds of thousands of Americans woke up yesterday morning and decided it was time for revolt. The politicians never saw it coming. Millions of phone calls and emails hit Congress so hard it was as if Marshall Dillon, Elliot Ness and Dog the Bounty Hunter had descended on D.C. to stop the looting and arrest the thieves.
The Corporate Crime of the Century was halted by a vote of 228 to 205. It was rare and historic; no one could remember a time when a bill supported by the president and the leadership of both parties went down in defeat. That just never happens.
A lot of people are wondering why the right wing of the Republican Party joined with the left wing of the Democratic Party in voting down the thievery. Forty percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans voted against the bill.
Here's what happened:
The presidential race may still be close in the polls, but the Congressional races are pointing toward a landslide for the Democrats. Few dispute the prediction that the Republicans are in for a whoopin' on November 4th. Up to 30 Republican House seats could be lost in what would be a stunning repudiation of their agenda.
The Republican reps are so scared of losing their seats, when this "financial crisis" reared its head two weeks ago, they realized they had just been handed their one and only chance to separate themselves from Bush before the election, while doing something that would make them look like they were on the side of "the people."
Watching C-Span yesterday morning was one of the best comedy shows I'd seen in ages. There they were, one Republican after another who had backed the war and sunk the country into record debt, who had voted to kill every regulation that would have kept Wall Street in check -- there they were, now crying foul and standing up for the little guy! One after another, they stood at the microphone on the House floor and threw Bush under the bus, under the train (even though they had voted to kill off our nation's trains, too), heck, they would've thrown him under the rising waters of the Lower Ninth Ward if they could've conjured up another hurricane. You know how your dog acts when sprayed by a skunk? He howls and runs around trying to shake it off, rubbing and rolling himself on every piece of your carpet, trying to get rid of the stench. That's what it looked like on the Republican side of the aisle yesterday, and it was a sight to behold.
The 95 brave Dems who broke with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were the real heroes, just like those few who stood up and voted against the war in October of 2002. Watch the remarks from yesterday of Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Dennis Kucinich. They spoke the truth.
The Dems who voted for the giveaway did so mostly because they were scared by the threats of Wall Street, that if the rich didn't get their handout, the market would go nuts and then it's bye-bye stock-based pension and retirement funds.
And guess what? That's exactly what Wall Street did! The largest, single-day drop in the Dow in the history of the New York Stock exchange. The news anchors last night screamed it out: Americans just lost 1.2 trillion dollars in the stock market!! It's a financial Pearl Harbor! The sky is falling! Bird flu! Killer Bees!
Of course, sane people know that nobody "lost" anything yesterday, that stocks go up and down and this too shall pass because the rich will now buy low, hold, then sell off, then buy low again.
But for now, Wall Street and its propaganda arm (the networks and media it owns) will continue to try and scare the bejesus out of you. It will be harder to get a loan. Some people will lose their jobs. A weak nation of wimps won't last long under this torture. Or will we? Is this our line in the sand?
Here's my guess: The Democratic leadership in the House secretly hoped all along that this lousy bill would go down. With Bush's proposals shredded, the Dems knew they could then write their own bill that favors the average American, not the upper 10% who were hoping for another kegger of gold.
So the ball is in the Democrats' hands. The gun from Wall Street remains at their head. Before they make their next move, let me tell you what the media kept silent about while this bill was being debated:
1. The bailout bill had NO enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight group that was going to monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion;
2. It had NO penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money;
3. It did NOTHING to force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures -- this bill would not have stopped ONE foreclosure!;
4. It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout;
5. Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.
Put a fork in this slab of pork. It's over. Now it is time for our side to state very clearly the laws WE want passed. I will send you my proposals later today. We've bought ourselves less than 72 hours.
Michael Moore

my thoughts

who said this:

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

are these crazy ramblings? or do you think they ring true?
does it seem filled with hate?

i do not think so. these are excerpts from Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech on sept. 19th. The US and Israel didn't even stay to listen to him speak. He called the US occupiers, which many US citizens think we are. i don't see in this transcript where he called Israel zionists but doing research on the history of Israel there was a zionist revolution in Israel.  i just don't understand how you can disregard the context of his speech and views.  

This is what he said about Palestine:
The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

Is this not true?  The people of Palestine have no rights.  He is calling for equal right to vote.  I understand god's chosen people have been given this land but what about the Palestinians?  They lived there for centuries too and now live without rights.

And in regards to their nuclear program I find it hard to believe that it's unthinkable they could just be trying to use it for energy.  We are, our government is touting the need for nuclear power.  He said, "All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights?"

he closes:
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over 6 billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

am i crazy or is this talking about hope and peace?

iranians are people too:

this is from a while ago but we watched it in my art history class.

also as i understand it, years ago he didn't say Israel should be wiped off the map he said the Israel of today won't be the same forever, and it was a quote from an ayatollah, and that it was interpreted wrong by the New York Times.

fer funny

Monday, September 29, 2008

open secrets

great web site nan, thanks!

congress people who voted in favor of the bail out have received 50% more campaign contributions from these finance companies than those who didn't.  hmmm. . . . 

gets fishier all the time.

the bill

the bill

Economist Leads Push Against The Bailout

another good listen on planet money.

McCain blames Obama for bailout defeat

yes of course it's obama's fault.  

planet money has a million links.  i was going to paste one, then i went to another and another.  you can nose around your self if you want to learn more.  also thought this article in the economist was pretty good.

i think the main thing is no one knows what to do.  oh wait, no one does.  no one knows if this bail out will work on the long run, but how bad are things going to get in the short run if we don't do anything?  

it's pretty crazy the dow dropped almost 800 points.  eek!

stole these from tyler

this one is kind of long, and at the beginning i thought they were making cheap shots but they backed them up:

let's do something

i got this from my friend michael moore :)


Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.

No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:

"Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.

"Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.

"At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.

"Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions."
Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to "consult" in the bailout.

The problem is, nobody truly knows what this "collapse" is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn't know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can't figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone.

And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Falling for whom? NOTHING in this "bailout" package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance.

Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What's this got to do with the Wall Street collapse?

It has everything to do with it. This so-called "collapse" was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people's home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it's because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.

This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!

I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately:

1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street.

2. Take to the streets. Participate in one of the hundreds of quickly-called demonstrations that are taking place all over the country (especially those near Wall Street and DC).

3. Call your Representative in Congress and your Senators. (click here to find their phone numbers). Tell them what you told Senator Obama.

When you screw up in life, there is hell to pay. Each and every one of you reading this knows that basic lesson and has paid the consequences of your actions at some point. In this great democracy, we cannot let there be one set of rules for the vast majority of hard-working citizens, and another set of rules for the elite, who, when they screw up, are handed one more gift on a silver platter. No more! Not again!

Michael Moore

P.S. Having read further the details of this bailout bill, you need to know you are being lied to. They talk about how they will prevent golden parachutes. It says NOTHING about what these executives and fat cats will make in SALARY. According to Rep. Brad Sherman of California, these top managers will continue to receive million-dollar-a-month paychecks under this new bill. There is no direct ownership given to the American people for the money being handed over. Foreign banks and investors will be allowed to receive billion-dollar handouts. A large chunk of this $700 billion is going to be given directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks. There is NO guarantee of ever seeing that money again.

P.P.S. From talking to people I know in DC, they say the reason so many Dems are behind this is because Wall Street this weekend put a gun to their heads and said either turn over the $700 billion or the first thing we'll start blowing up are the pension funds and 401(k)s of your middle class constituents. The Dems are scared they may make good on their threat. But this is not the time to back down or act like the typical Democrat we have witnessed for the last eight years. The Dems handed a stolen election over to Bush. The Dems gave Bush the votes he needed to invade a sovereign country. Once they took over Congress in 2007, they refused to pull the plug on the war. And now they have been cowered into being accomplices in the crime of the century. You have to call them now and say "NO!" If we let them do this, just imagine how hard it will be to get anything good done when President Obama is in the White House. THESE DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THE BACKBONE WE GIVE THEM. CALL CONGRESS NOW.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

hmmm. . . .

a few points

ugh.  man mccain saying he isn't politicizing this economic issues is such bull.  as i understand it obama called him this morning to work on a statement, talk about it.  mccain says no i'm suspending my campaign and going to work with congress.  while i can see the importance of doing your job, there is NO WAY they can finalize a solution in a few days.  how long will it take?  who knows, but it shouldn't be forced into a few days to finish.  he says if obama would have had town halls, now he's trying to call the shots again.  i wish i could visine his water.

I DO NOT TRUST THIS PAULSON.  i knew something fishy was going on, when he worked at goldman sachs!  how can he be objective about this?  he made $37 million with them in 2005 and $16 million in 2006.  doesn't it seem really fucked up that he is requesting all this money to use at his discression that is "nonreveiwable and committed to agency discretion and may NOT be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency"!?!  why not?  what do you have to hide?  something.

thank goodness i wasn't the only one feeling this way.  the FBI is now investigating.

i am also pissed at people saying that this whole crisis is the fault of people who got loans they couldn't afford.  watch that documentary maxxed out, or listen to the NPR this american life, the giant pool of money.  THIS IS NOT ALL THEIR FAULT.  there was preditory lending going on.  to blame stupid people for getting tricked is bull.

oh and what bush said about the economy, "It turns out there's a lot of inner links throughout the financial system."  really you idiot.  just figuring that out now huh?!  ugh!  and i'm supposed to trust what he thinks is best.

NO ONE KNOWS what to do and giving them $700 billion dollars is not the answer.  what happened to free market.  what will happen, how do these 4 companies control our ENTIRE economy?  i'm telling you something really fishy is going on and i'm not buying it.

finally i have been skeptical of this whole feminism and palin thing, but now i'm turning around.  she is not being treated equally, by MCCAIN'S campaign.  why won't they let her talk?  she's just a puppet?  i say FREE SARAH PALIN.  if she's so capable, let her be.  prove us wrong.  treat her like you'd treat any candidate.  for the love of god.

oh, bill clinton on the daily show. . . . 

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

obama's got it

this is what i've been trying to think lately.  this article kiko forwarded me is exactly it.  the mccain/palin ticket freaks me out.  they continue to lie, mccain is now the regulator after years of touting being a de-regutator.  palin is not qualified for the job PERIOD.  they just can't win.  

Friday, September 19, 2008

recession or not?

i was just talking to a massage therapist who works with me who is VERY republican.  i am trying to have an open mind.  it's hard not to feel the us against them or my side vs. their side and that's my ego too.  i'm not the owner of the truth either but i really want to be educated about all this too so. . . 

he was saying that we weren't in a recession, and i thought i would look it up.  i found this article from fortune magazine and looks like we aren't really, which is good to know.  but there is a lot of craziness going on in our economy, and the info from new NPR show planet money has been awesome, trying to understand all of these government take overs.  i have just been listening to the pod casts.  

on another note, last night in my art history class we watched this from edward said about orientalism, he talks about the west's idea of western asia a.k.a. the middle east.  there are 4 parts and other clips of him talking about israel.  he's brilliant and it's important information.  i haven't watched them all but i want to read his book now!

figuring out context and our world view is important.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

white privilege

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise


For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because 'every family has challenges,' even as black and Latino families with similar 'challenges' are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a 'fuckin' redneck,' like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll 'kick their fuckin' ass,' and talk about how you like to 'shoot shit' for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're 'untested.'

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance because 'if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me,' and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the 'under God' part wasn't added until the 1950s–while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was 'Alaska first,' and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college–you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a 'second look.'

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a 'trick question,' while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a 'light' burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole 'change' thing.

Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain. White privilege is, in short, the problem.

before i finish my homework

watching keith olbermann had some funny stuff.

mccain talking to a GM plant in michigan and a bunch of the "fundamentals" in the audience wearing obama shirts/buttons/stickers, and as he was leaving they were chanting "obama 08".  awesome.

mcain also now walking away from his own record as a champion of government deregulation, saying wall street needs regulation.  

shall we look back at his history:

He supported 1999 GOP-sponsored legislation that tore down Depression-era legal walls separating commercial banks, investment banks and insurers from one another.

Throughout his congressional career, the Arizona senator has usually backed cutting federal regulation of industries in the name of promoting free markets and ending government interference, which is Republican ideology.

*remember he wants to cut out regulation of social security and schools by having a voucher system.  because corporations take such good care of the people.  

he has said:

jan 2008
“we neet to return to the Reagan years. We neet to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation.” to PBS

Told wall street journal 3/08
“I’m always for less regulation. . . . As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depend on the legislative agenda and what the congress does to some degree, but Im a fundamentally a deregulator.”

also in march
“our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by REMOVING REGULATORY”

"I don’t think frankly that someone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation or have higher taxes has any real understanding of economics."

way to shoot yourself in the foot mccain.  i'm not fooling myself, to get out of this huge deficit ANYONE who takes office is not going to be able to cut taxes really, or at least that much, but this trickle down theory does not work.  

"The real incom​es of middl​e-​class​ famil​ies grew more than twice​ as fast under​ Democ​ratic​ presi​dents​ as they did under​ Repub​lican​ presi​dents​.​ Even more remar​kable​,​ the real incom​es of worki​ng-​poor famil​ies (at 20th perce​ntile​ of the incom​e distr​ibuti​on)​ grew six times​ as fast when Democ​rats held the White​ House​.​ Only the incom​es of afflu​ent famil​ies were relat​ively​ imper​vious​ to parti​san polit​ics,​ growi​ng robus​tly under​ Democ​rats and Repub​lican​s alike​"​

"The past three​ decad​es have seen a momen​tous shift​:​ The rich becam​e vastl​y riche​r while​ worki​ng-​class​ wages​ stagn​ated.​ Econo​mists​ say 80 perce​nt of net incom​e gains​ since​ 1980 went to peopl​e in the top 1 perce​nt of the incom​e distr​ibuti​on.​"

GOVERMENT: of the people, by the people, for the people!

obama is up in the polls.

don’t lose heart

this was written by by Clarissa Pinkola-Estes:

Mis estimados: Do not lose heart. We were made for these times. I have heard from so many recently who are deeply and properly bewildered. They are concerned about the state of affairs in our world right now... Ours is a time of almost daily astonishment and often righteous rage over the latest degradations of what matters most to civilized, visionary people.
You are right in your assessments. The lustre and hubris some have aspired to while endorsing acts so heinous against children, elders, everyday people, the poor, the unguarded, the helpless, is breathtaking. Yet, I urge you, ask you, gentle you, to please not spend your spirit dry by bewailing these difficult times. Especially do not lose hope. Most particularly because, the fact is we were made for these times. Yes. For years, we have been learning, practicing, been in training for and just waiting to meet on this exact plain of engagement...
I grew up on the Great Lakes and recognize a seaworthy vessel when I see one. Regarding awakened souls, there have never been more able crafts in the waters than there are right now across the world. And they are fully provisioned and able to signal one another as never before in the history of humankind... Look out over the prow; there are millions of boats of righteous souls on the waters with you. Even though your veneers may shiver from every wave in this stormy roil, I assure you that the long timbers composing your prow and rudder come from a greater forest. That long-grained lumber is known to withstand storms, to hold together, to hold its own, and to advance, regardless.
We have been in training for a dark time such as this, since the day we assented to come to Earth. For many decades, worldwide, souls just like us have been felled and left for dead in so many ways over and over brought down by naiveté, by lack of love, by being ambushed and assaulted by various cultural and personal shocks in the extreme. We have a history of being gutted, and yet remember this especially - we have also, of necessity, perfected the knack of resurrection. Over and over again we have been the living proof that that which has been exiled, lost, or foundered can be restored to life again.
In any dark time, there is a tendency to veer toward fainting over how much is wrong or unmended in the world. Do not focus on that. There is a tendency too to fall into being weakened by perseverating on what is outside your reach, by what cannot yet be. Do not focus there. That is spending the wind without raising the sails. We are needed, that is all we can know. And though we meet resistance, we more so will meet great souls who will hail us, love us and guide us, and we will know them when they appear. Didn't you say you were a believer? Didn't you say you pledged to listen to a voice greater? Didn't you ask for grace? Don't you remember that to be in grace means to submit to the voice greater?...
Understand the paradox: If you study the physics of a waterspout, you will see that the outer vortex whirls far more quickly than the inner one. To calm the storm means to quiet the outer layer, to cause it to swirl much less, to more evenly match the velocity of the inner core - 'til whatever has been lifted into such a vicious funnel falls back to Earth, lays down, is peaceable again. One of the most important steps you can take to help calm the storm is to not allow yourself to be taken in a flurry of overwrought emotion or desperation thereby accidentally contributing to the swale and the swirl.
Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any small, calm thing that one soul can do to help another soul, to assist some portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good. What is needed for dramatic change is an accumulation of acts, adding, adding to, adding more, continuing. We know that it does not take "everyone on Earth" to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second, or hundredth gale.
One of the most calming and powerful actions you can do to intervene in a stormy world is to stand up and show your soul. Soul on deck shines like gold in dark times. The light of the soul throws sparks, can send up flares, builds signal fires, causes proper matters to catch fire. To display the lantern of soul in shadowy times like these - to be fierce and to show mercy toward others, both, are acts of immense bravery and greatest necessity. Struggling souls catch light from other souls who are fully lit and willing to show it. If you would help to calm the tumult, this is one of the strongest things you can do.
There will always be times when you feel discouraged. I too have felt despair many times in my life, but I do not keep a chair for it; I will not entertain it. It is not allowed to eat from my plate. The reason is this: In my uttermost bones I know something, as do you. It is that there can be no despair when you remember why you came to Earth, who you serve, and who sent you here. The good words we say and the good deeds we do are not ours: They are the words and deeds of the One who brought us here. In that spirit, I hope you will write this on your wall: When a great ship is in harbor and moored, it is safe, there can be no doubt. But that is not what great ships are built for.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

i'm sure you've heard

lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild a fervent hillary supporter has loudly defected because, “This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist."  

so was she just going to vote for hillary for her because she had a va jj?  

who is a woman who splits her time between london and new york to call obama an elitist?  she said, it's a state of mind and has nothing to do with your wealth.  i call bull on her.  i think she should stay in london with her knight of a husband.  i think it's utterly impossible for obama to be an elitist (especially compared to a titled lady).  is it just an excuse for he's black?

fact check

another way to check the facts!

also an article about the waning influence of americas supreme court.

from the mouth

of the woman who could be our next vice president.  about this economic crisis:

"this crisis happened for several reasons which have to be addressed right now.  guys and gals. . . our regulatory system is out of date and it needs a complete overhaul.  our economy will grow and we will get government out of the way of private sector progress."

#1.  guys and gals?!?!  why does it piss me off so much she said guys and gals.  come on i'm an adult, you're not addressing an audience of middle schoolers.

#2.  isn't that a complete contradiction.  are you saying you are not going to be the one in charge of this complete overhaul?  so who is?  

mccain's beautiful back track was just lovely yesterday too.  "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" although we are seeing things we haven't seen since the great depression.  wait what i meant by fundamentals is the ingenuity of the american worker.  ah yes, of course, fundamentals has a whole new meaning.

Why that's wrong: Economists, politicians and journalists have long referred to economic "fundamentals" as quantifiable concepts, such as unemployment rates, gross domestic product, inflation, productivity and so forth.

Moreover, in their widely used textbook, "Economics," Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus titled their first chapter "The Fundamentals of Economics," and noted that "Every society must answer three fundamental questions: what, how, and for whom? What kinds and quantities are produced among the wide range of all possible goods and services? How are resources used in producing these goods? And for whom are the goods produced (that is, what is the distribution of income and consumption among different individuals and classes)?"

Note the absence of "workers."

McCain's attempt to stretch the word "fundamentals" into a synonym for "workers" is a stretch too far.

from this article

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

5 ex-secretaries URGE talks with iran

the republicans called obama naive for saying we should talk with iran.  well today 5 ex-secretaries of state said that we should.  of course now mccain changes his tune.  obama has been on point this whole time.

can the mccain camp come up with anything on their own?  are you sick of them biting all of obama's slogans?  

the new this american life on NPR, the 2nd act, had some illuminating information about what's been going on with wall street.
due to the success of the fore mentioned giant pool of money, alex bloomberg and others, have started planet money, bound to keep me learning.


karl rove even thinks mccain's negative campaign lies have gone too far!  pretty crazy.

now mrs. palin, who cannot even handle answering a questions (that's exactly what we need in the white house), refuses to cooperate with the trooper gate investigation, blaming obama?!?!  excuse me, she got herself into this mess.  

does to not blink, mean to not think?  does to not even spend one minute of reflection or thought about accepting a role like vice president?  i believe it is important for people to stop and think about things, especially something as major as accepting a job that you aren't even remotely prepared for.  to be conscious of your intentions.  to be aware.  

who likes answers

Monday, September 15, 2008

obama for genocide?

i was starting to think i'd like to know what the people of iraq think about what is going on in their country.  i found this site that has links to a lot of blogs from people from iraq.

i was shocked to learn that most (they all seemed to be ex-pats) were for mccain.  after a bit more research i realized that they seem think obama is for genocide.  after looking i found this on obama's site.  i take it mean that america has not set presidence for going into countries to help with genocide.  if that was the case we would be in sudan or darfur, where the loss of human life has been horrible.  

am i wrong?  

thanks for sharing

this just about sums it up.  what does sarah palin bring to the table:  the white americans wishing for an america that never was.  check out this article!  (thanks for sharing kiko)

the real john mccain

had to post this, gop's stance on mccain.  "the though of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine" too.

all fired up again.  


oh dear, bad news this morning on the economic front. then stupid john mccain speaking in jacksonville florida saying the same old thing, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." well i'm sorry sir, you yourself have said you need some help with the economy.

if you want some education about why we are where we are with our economy and this credit crisis i have a few referals for you, so you will be more educated that stupid war mongering mccain:

this american life did a great piece in conjunction with NPR news called the giant pool of money (episode # 355). you can listen for free, down load for fee, or just look at the transcript HERE.  this episode has a lot of information.

a great documentary maxed out.  it's awesomely informative, and slightly depressing but true.

one i haven't seen yet, but the web site is great is I.O.U.S.A. which promises to be greatly informative.  they also have a p.d.f. you can download that is a brochure about the state of the union's finances.  wowza, very informative, can't wait to check out the movie.

i found this site that seems to have some good info too.  nightmare on wall street.

america freedom to fascism has a lot of interesting info too.  i talked about that earlier, but here is a link you can actually watch it!

kiko was talking about what the reason for the 9/11 attacks were at that the terrorist actually have succeeded in their goal.  we have been dragged into a un-winable war (thank you general petraeus for admitting that) and our economy is crumbling.  i came upon another documentary that a review said, "will make your jaw drop again and again".  let's get a little context into the lives of these people shall we, let's learn a lesson rather than assume (which makes and ass of you), assume they want a life like ours, assume they need our same values, assume they are ready and happy to accept this way of life.  anyway looking forward to checking out farewell israel:  bush, iran and the revolt of islam.

man, i love learning.  i can't believe half of america wants someone in the white house because they are easy to understand, or is just like them.  we've had 8 years of stupidity in the white house.  having someone who is knowledgeable and educated is exciting!

and remember:

"The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike."

don't you think if everyone just looked at the economic history, and knew that democrats actually do the economy better they would vote on the issue not on the wedge issues!  f.n.a.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

holy shit

this man is crazy! please for the love of god pass this on.

please, no more insanity. no more thinking you have the right to kill innocent people because they are different. no finger on the trigger (unless there are zombies).

Saturday, September 13, 2008

if you haven't

register to vote!  the dead line is coming up for EVERY state.  

i know it's matt damon, but it is scary.  it's scary, scary, scary.  these stupid republican's fear mongering!

and why is it disrespectful to call someone out when they are lying if they are?  that's not disrespectful, it's the truth!

Friday, September 12, 2008

mccain's lobbyist

very good site, thanks nan!

Thursday, September 11, 2008


Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University and a retired Army colonel, discusses his new book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.


ugh, god mccain just said at this pre-debate thing, almost the exact same fu*&$#% thing that he said about bil ladin, about washington.

"i'm from there, i've been there i know how to fix it."  well what the hell have you been doing there for the last 20 odd years?!?!  why didn't you fix it then?!  ugh, i wanna slap him.

sarah palin's interview, missed it.  looking online.  so she never hesitated to accept the job, never a thought crossed her mind.  great, ya that's the sort of thing you don't need to think about at all.

and she's saying the god comment was a repeat of ab lincoln's words.  that poor man is rolling over in his grave.  sorry, i know what she's saying sounds like the right thing to say, but other people have different goals than your own and you cannot force them on other people.  

in class tonight we talked about hinduism.  they have a million gods, because they have a million perspectives.  i'm not hindi but i respect them and their perspectives.  i pray we don't go wreaking havoc all over the globe.  

do these politicians have access to the Rand Corp report that said that terrorist cells get absorbed by the political parties and military force doesn't work.  that's what that guy on NPR was saying too.  

ugh, good lord, help me let it all go.  grant me serenity.

mccain, aiding and abetting bin ladin

another interesting site.

mccain said, "Look, I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama Bil Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice.  We will do it.  I know how to do it."

so if he knows but  he's choosing to do nothing (until he's elected) isn't that aiding and abetting and fear mongering.  what an ass.  he's the only one who knows, yet he does nothing.

it's worth a try

If you feel as I do hope you'll add your voice.
Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters, we are writing to you
because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement
of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the
Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has
surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce - on
the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate -
that has a real possibilityof becoming fact.

Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms.
Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for
ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is
against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform,
environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom
of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire
the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation
of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her
complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-
powerful person on the planet.

We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman,
a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but
solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice
for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a
slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and
grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and
that we've so demonstrably benefited from.

*First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not
demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is
presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket
could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly
*Therefore, we invite you to reply here:

with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in
this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command
for our nation.*

Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of
residence. We will post your responses on a blog called'Women
Against Sarah Palin,' which we intend to publicize as widely as
possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest convenience -
the greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our
message will be.

Thank you for your time and action.


Wednesday, September 10, 2008

oh and mccain's

lipstick on a pig comment


how stupid to make this an issue.

oh and one more thing about palin

she cut funding for families with special needs children by 63%.

it's a fact.  i'm sure this was before she had a special needs child, and she actually makes enough money she wouldn't need any help.

oh and alaska has the highest rate of rape in the country.  


ikea is coming to colorado!

lies lies

i know people get tired of the mud slinging with politics but the more you learn you have to get impassioned by this whole thing.  if you pay attention to the issues, the truth and the lies, the policies, you would have to care one way or another.  apathy is very dangerous especially when the election is going to be so close.  

bush's speech writers are putting words in the mouths of mccain and palin.
carl rove is helping them!  
this is not change!  this is the same old b.s.

they are being branded exactly the same as bush.  they are putting out, talking about their weakest point, like it is their strongest (this i guess is a rovian technique used with bush.  if you are screaming about it people just believe even though its all lies).  how can you be so against the man, the lobbyist and the pork belly spending when your entire campaign staff is made up of lobbyist?!

this is true.  mccain has had 59 lobbyist raising money for his campaign, more than any other presidential candidate.

A top adviser to John McCain's campaign, former lobbyist Charlie Black, previously represented a Moscow think tank run by former Russian Telecommunications Minister Leonid Reiman.

this site is awesome.

According to an analysis of fund-raising data released Thursday by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. McCain raised more money in June and July from larger donors in 15 of the top-donating 25 industries than did Sen. Obama.

The Republican nominee drew more donations from executives at oil and gas, real-estate, securities and investment and insurance companies, the data showed. He raised $22.3 million from the top 25 industries in the two-month period, compared with Sen. Obama's $19.9 million.

he is surrounded by lobbyist, taking money from corperations.  he's not walking the walk, he's just talking the talk.  it's so frustrating.  

palin is continuing to lie her pants off giving the exact same speech over and over.  i'm so glad she is back in alaska after today.  let's just pray and pray the spike in popularity just drops once the focus is back on mccain.

she didn't sell her jet on ebay (she listed it on ebay but it didn't sell).
she didn't fire the personal chef (she changed the job title, but she still cooked for her kids).
she wasn't against the bridge to nowhere (she was for it, then against it, then kept the money).  
she charged the state per-diem for being at her house with her kids in wasilla.

there was a quote i heard on keith oberman last night: "you can't legislate ethics, either have them or you don't."

it's seems obvious that they don't have it.

i wish i could scream this information on a mountain top.  

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

looking in the bible

i started to do some research related to the gay counseling and conversion in my bible, just because i was curious.  i know that there are versus in the bible that reference it.  true enough in romans 1:26-27 paul did talk about some people having done wrong.  of all the things i think of this, #1, the context and #2 the fact that paul wrote it to explain his faith.  i was struck that in romans 2:1-3 it says:  "if you think you can judge others, you are wrong.  when you judge them, you are really judging yourself guilty, because you do the same things they do.  God judges those who do wrong things, and we know that his judging is right.  you judge those who do wrong, but you do wrong yourselves.  do you think you will be able to escape the judgement of god?"  then in 2:11 "for god judges all people in the same way."  

i just thought it was interesting this was right below the quote in 1:26.  also i looked up on the internet that he was probably talking about a group that were practicing pagan rituals, since right before in verses 18-26 it said they had known god but made idols and worshiped them, then god left them.

flipping around i landed on 1 timothy 2.  some rules for men and women.  it instructs people to pray for rulers and those who have authority (so sarah palin is right on track actually with this).  then in 2:9-15, "Also, women should wear proper clothes that show respect and self-control, not using braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.  instead, they should do good deeds, which is right for women who say they worship god.  let a woman learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything.  but i do not allow  woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to listen quietly, because adam was formed first hen eve. and adam was not tricked, but the woman was tricked and became a sinner.  but she will be save through having children if they continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control."

so if you believe implicitly in everything the bible says to be truth, than a woman really can't be vice president than, right?  or have expensive clothes.  or wear jewelry.  hmmm. . . interesting.  

(i only have a youth bible, so it's translated into even easier more heavily translated version, so who knows how far off it is from what was really written before this game of telephone was put in a book.)


do i do this to myself.  i watched origins of aids this morning.  way to start the day.  it makes a pretty tough case.  i think you can watch it free on the link.

Monday, September 8, 2008


well that movie split: a divided america was really informative.  

78% of american's get all of their political information from campaign ads.  how scary is that! 

when the founding father's gave us free speech they intended for us to have a dialog so the truth would triumph, but now we are passive on lookers for the most part.  when freedom of speech and press falters the market place of ideas fails and it's impossible to fill the most important civic obligation.  make and informed vote that will keep the government in check.

this leads to voter disenfranchisment because people feel they are being excluded from the process.  

so, only the most committed  are actively involved.  (these are the people who donate $)  both sides need this money so they cater with the strongest feelings of those who write the checks.  so the elected play to base.  so this creates a partisan discourse leading to 1 or 2 wedge issues, which we can totally feel!  creates a divide, that is actually probably not as big as the media makes it out to be, but makes it impossible to discuss.  (i can't even talk politics with family, can you?)  and leads people to think, "why bother?" because you can't change peoples mind, and there is no room for compromise.  

so concerning faith and politics.  i had no idea there was a debate about what "a separation of church and state", but i guess there is.  state is supposed to stay out of the church's business, where as i thought it was that church was supposed to stay out of government's business (which is probably how the  atheist founding father's intended it, although it's not in the constitution or bill of rights).  

the real issue isn't faith as much as values and morals or moral values.  beyond the 2 wedge issues i can think of (abortion and gay marriage) it also tells people in the bible to care for the poor, the sick, the elderly, and orphans.  and there is a just war doctrine and christians really aren't supposed to start a war.  

it seems there really does come a point when politicians start to exploit the moral conscious.  then faith becomes more important than policy because people are only paying attention to the one or two wedge issues.  these moral values cannot be legally solved.  george bush had the same values as mccain, yet abortion is still legal and more gay's have the right of marriage now that 8 years ago, but our economy is failing, our environment is being destroyed, we are fighting an war with no positive outcome, our schools are failing. . . .

the movie also talked about the willingness and readiness to disrespect their opponents.  a take no prisoners attitude.  this attitude filters down which is why it gets harder and harder to even discuss the issues, because it's ok to be disrespectful, we almost don't know how to talk about it without getting so impassioned we can be disrespectful.

the concentration of media ownership has created a bias in reporting.  in 1986 there were 86 companies that owned media outlets, now there are 7.  these companies determine the issues and how they are covered.  

what are the strategies for the campaigns.  traditionally the democrats try and get people to register and get out and vote.  the republican strategy has been the opposite really.  it's to drive down voter turn out by going negative.  if this didn't work they wouldn't keep doing it.  people get fatigued and don't vote.  

so. . . what do we do?  try and talk to people i guess.  pay attention to the REAL issues.  find a way to compromise and find the commonalities, because there are many more than a few wedge issues.  vote.

have no fear you sinner

palin's church can convert you, if you're gay they'll make you straight.  praise the lord, i'm glad someone finally figured this out.


i am feeling a lot more peace about all this, maybe it's because i've taken a little break from watching pundits.  i do have a new movie to watch called split: a divided america.  it looks pretty interesting.  had tucker carlson saying that middle america feels that they don't have any control over their lives and that very educated people are making all the decisions.  maybe it will give me some context in how other people think.

i was really feeling the me vs. these people (people who are on board with mccain/palin) and that's not healthy either.  i was having so much fear that there are going to be people in the white house who get to make decisions about how i live my life in ways that i do not want.  i know i don't have the answers but neither to they.  books, war, choice, religion.

my mom said i need to be careful about who i share my views with.  i don't at work, but people need to be able to talk about politics.  that's what america is supposed to be about.  freedom of speech.  right?

Saturday, September 6, 2008

new stuff

i had a discussion with a classmate today about how i'm getting so charged up by this election and doing all this research and possibly making myself mad.  he said, "why we can't do anything but vote".  well after learning about the kid in colorado, blogging from his mother's house helping get palin picked, i refuse to believe i'm helpless.  i'm going to start community organizing (scoff all you want republicans although a comment in the politico said, "mrs. palin needs to be reminded that jesus was a community organizer and pontius pilate was a governor").  these are some ideas i got off of an interview on larry king and bill maher (who's podcast you can download for free!).

#1.  the republicans keep saying they are going to get government out of the way, government doesn't work.  well they have run for office then prove once they are in charge the government doesn't work well under their leadership.

government is of the people, for the people, by the people.  that's the government.  they are against us when they say they are against the government.  

#2.  while it is the governments job to defend against eminent attack, this war in iraq has been proven not to be that.  does anyone else remember they lied!

#3.  this surge may be working but it is cleaning up a mess that they made.  it's like spilling milk on the floor than finding the right rag to clean it up and saying look i cleaned up the milk.  good job guys!

#4.  john conyers health bill: (H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act. My bill would create a single payer universal health care system by strengthening and extending the Medicare program to cover all Americans) is very hopeful.  everyone who's seen sicko would agree that america should have the same kind of health coverage as cuba!  when you click the link you sign for support.

#5.  mccain's chief advisor is a lobbyist for georgia.

#6.  george bush's speech writer wrote sarah palin's campaign speech.

you must register to vote before oct 4, 5, or 6 depending on where you live.

you can watch michael moore's new movie slacker uprising for free starting sept. 23rd.  just go here.

Friday, September 5, 2008

what does it mean?

i was just wondering what exactly liberal meant.  the republicans use it like it is a bad word (and claim obama is the most liberal senator in the senate) so i thought i'd look it up.  

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

~broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...

~having political or social views favoring reform and progress

~tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

~a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

~big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

~free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

~a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

~Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.

~One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty  

~A supporter of any of the particular liberal parties; One opposing the views of a social conservative and favoring socially responsible taxes. ...

~In the US political spectrum, “liberals” are said to be slightly left-of-center or somewhat left-of-center. ...

~people who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.

~Associated with freedom and/or generosity. Thus in England to be liberal (or to be a liberal) is to favor free markets, including free trade. ...

~Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and ...

~Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.

~Giving or generous, or broad minded, tolerant of other ideals, nontraditional.

~A term that includes such meanings as open-mindedness, a desire to favor reforms and a tolerance toward non-traditionalist views.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 


Now let's look at the other side of the coin.  Can you guess what it says?!

Definitions of conservative on the Web:

~resistant to change

~having social or political views favoring conservatism

~cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

~button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek

~a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

~Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...

~A person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status.

~Any shade of political opinion from moderately right-of-center to firmly right-of-center. Of the two major parties in the United States, the ...

~people who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes. Conservatives are often referred to as the right wing.

~referring to an investment philosophy that accepts below-average investment returns in order to avoid significant risks.

~Generally, an adherence to long-standing, traditional values and maintaining a caution for any excess.

~In biological usage – this refers to characters or organisms that demonstrate relatively little external anatomical change over time.

~Traditionally, conservative means to favor things as they are and to be cautious. To be conservative politically is to respect traditional ...

~The political view that things should stay the way things are. Belief in little or no socialized spending.

~Within Christianity, this is one wing of the religion, composed of Fundamentalists, other Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and members of most independent churches. The term contrasts with mainline and liberal Christians.

~Conservatives emphasize traditional values, and they are often referred to as right-wing. The Republican party is generally considered to be the conservative major party. However, some Republicans can hold some liberal values. ...

~adjective: a. tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions b. traditional values or views

~fixed income and preferred stocks are considered conservative

~At the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality.

~In politics, tending to follow established tradition and styles, and therefore to be cautious and slower to change.

~(A) Tending to preserve; preservative; inclined ot keep up existing institutions and customs; opposed to radical changes or innovation; moderate, cautious. (N) One whose principles, methods, and habits are moderate and cautious; one who avoids extremes. an advocate of political caution.

Ok, so how can a conservative republican (sarah palin is as far right as you can get) be about change.  The whole definition is opposed to change!  They by definition do not want to have anything to do with change, unless the change means being less tolerant.  I just blew my mind.